iranian general qassem soleimani

Posted by: jgw

iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/08/20 07:54 PM

This one is a puzzle. I have been watching TV and BOTH sides are saying that Soleimani is a terrorist and a monster responsible for killing thousands of Americans.

As far as I can tell he is an Iranian General who supports Iran and Shias everywhere. The Shias are massively outnumbered by their enemies the Sunni. When Shia enclaves/groups come under fire the Iranians support them against the Sunni trying to kill them. This has been going on for over 1000 years!

Apparently Soleimani also is supposed to have invented the IED. As far as I can tell he has also created groups to try and deal with American presence. Given our history, in that part of the world I wouldn't want us there either. We slaughtered, for instance, OVER 2 hundred thousand in Iraq whilst saving them from the Saddam monster. I have no idea of our toll in Afghanistan but I have full faith we have slaughtered thousands more. In other words, if you are in another country, and the Americans come to save you RUN LIKE HELL!
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/file...-2014%20FIN.pdf

Someplace else I inferred that we have not exactly experienced any Iranian Terrorism - yet. As far as I can tell that's a fact (not really sure). I do know that we have experience a LOT of Sunni terrorism and still do. They just killed some of ours in Africa just the other day! (its a regular occurrence)

Anyway, all that being said. Can anybody tell me why this guy is a terrorist, a monster, and has killed thousands of Americans? OR is his reputation all about his support of his own because he is fighting against an American that invades and slaughters, literally, thousands upon thousands?

Basically, was he any different than the United States which seems to have a real penchant for slaughter.

I also did a google search on him. Can't find anything that would make him anymore than somebody who opposes us with, I think, some justification.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/08/20 09:48 PM

My understanding is when ISIS expanded into Iraq the Iraqi military was in no shape to resist them (see 'Gulf War'). We only helped in the way of air strikes and it wasn't proving to be effective in turning ISIS back.
Iraq turned to it's neighbor and asked for help. Iran sent Soleimani to see what could be done about it. Soleimani recommended they raise a civil defense force of organized militia volunteers and helped with the implementation of his plan.
That turned out to be successful and resulted in helping push back ISIS, which was a good thing as people were sick of getting their heads sawn off for littering by them.

Soleimani is revered like Ike over there.

The defense militia's are what's being referred to as 'Iranian backed militias' in some of the news stories.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/08/20 10:34 PM

Iran backs Shias everywhere and especially if they are oppressed by their Sunni masters.

It is all a matter of perspective for some folks. I can compartmentalize and see from both perspectives. Thus if you are a conservative you are all in for Sunni's against Shias everywhere. And if you are an end of the world Christian, Iran's official position is Israel should hold a referendum on self determination is a non starter and therefore Iran should be destroyed for even suggesting the idea.

So ask any conservative what the definition is of state sponsor of terrorism and check to see if the US does not qualify.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/08/20 10:52 PM

So who's interests are getting served here?
Posted by: logtroll

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/08/20 11:30 PM

Satan's?
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 12:35 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
So who's interests are getting served here?


You'd want to look into the economics of the situation to figure that out. But since Donald Trump is a part of the equation then it is only Trump's interests being served.

Another recent assassination was that Khashogi guy. They could have taken him out quietly. But they wanted to send a message. A message that included bone saws to people like Kashogi. The way I see it, 13 men martyred themselves for their King. They don't think like we do.

Trump needed a distraction from the impeachment. An Osama Bin Laden moment would be just the thing. Soleimani drew the short straw.

Iran recognized his political need for the slaying and answered with only a ceremonial counter attack. They lost a General but they gained the high ground and the right to build nuclear weapons. It was a huge win for Iran on the world stage as they heroically declined to respond and give Trump the fireworks he needed to completely change the news cycle and usher in the devastating war that the USA has been trying to start for decades.

It seems the only way to keep American hands off your personal sh*t is to build a nuclear weapon and aim it at the White House.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 02:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
So who's interests are getting served here?


You'd want to look into the economics of the situation to figure that out. But since Donald Trump is a part of the equation then it is only Trump's interests being served.

Another recent assassination was that Khashogi guy. They could have taken him out quietly. But they wanted to send a message. A message that included bone saws to people like Kashogi. The way I see it, 13 men martyred themselves for their King. They don't think like we do.

Trump needed a distraction from the impeachment. An Osama Bin Laden moment would be just the thing. Soleimani drew the short straw.

Iran recognized his political need for the slaying and answered with only a ceremonial counter attack. They lost a General but they gained the high ground and the right to build nuclear weapons. It was a huge win for Iran on the world stage as they heroically declined to respond and give Trump the fireworks he needed to completely change the news cycle and usher in the devastating war that the USA has been trying to start for decades.

It seems the only way to keep American hands off your personal sh*t is to build a nuclear weapon and aim it at the White House.



In reference to the RED part of the quote in BOLD, all I can say is:

Have you been out and about lately? LOL ROTFMOL LOL


Not only would he not need a bone saw, he doesn't even need a knife and fork sometimes.



Posted by: pdx rick

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 03:07 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
My understanding is when ISIS...

Let everyone be clear on ISIS: There was no ISIS until W Bush invaded Iraq on a false premise AND L Paul Bremmer fired the Iraqi military and police force three months (!) after the going into Iraq.

(Iraq invasion March 2003. Coaition Provisional Authority Order 2 May 23, 2003 firing military and police force.)

Those tactically trained men didn't go open falafel carts. Hmm

I return you the normally scheduled programing. smile
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 11:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
...Trump needed a distraction from the impeachment. An Osama Bin Laden moment would be just the thing. Soleimani drew the short straw.

...but as usual, Trump is the one who drew the short straw because he's incompetent.

No American knew who Soleimani was until he died. Bin Ladin was HUGELY famous in the United States. As just like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before Soleimani, nobody in the U.S. knew who he was.

Therein lies Trump's "problem." He's trying to score Obama-like victories, but keeps falling short of the apex Obama established because Trump keeps picking guys who nobody has heard of.

I love when I see Trump seethe in jealous anger of America's first black president being WAY, WAY better at the job than he is. smile
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


I love when I see Trump seethe in jealous anger of America's first black president being WAY, WAY better at the job than he is. smile


I "want to love" seeing that happen but I've learned that when Donald Trump is seething with anger over being bested by a tall willowy BLACK PRESIDENT with a name like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, he tends to break important stuff willy nilly, and have tantrums that wind up costing us a lot. Occasionally he even has tantrums that cost lives.

One former member of the "Apprentice" production staff by name of Noel Casler (@CaslerNoel on Twitter) says that he has personally witnessed Donald Trump snorting ground up Adderall. Casler insists he's a seventy-three year old speed freak and that his decades of Michael Jackson-like "sedation-stimulation" has pushed both his body and his brain to nearly the breaking point.

What happens if Trump, in a fit of pique, decides that the world doesn't deserve to survive if he doesn't stay in power?
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 06:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: pdx rick


I love when I see Trump seethe in jealous anger of America's first black president being WAY, WAY better at the job than he is. smile


I "want to love" seeing that happen but I've learned that when Donald Trump is seething with anger over being bested by a tall willowy BLACK PRESIDENT with a name like Barack HUSSEIN Obama, he tends to break important stuff willy nilly, and have tantrums that wind up costing us a lot. Occasionally he even has tantrums that cost lives.

One former member of the "Apprentice" production staff by name of Noel Casler (@CaslerNoel on Twitter) says that he has personally witnessed Donald Trump snorting ground up Adderall. Casler insists he's a seventy-three year old speed freak and that his decades of Michael Jackson-like "sedation-stimulation" has pushed both his body and his brain to nearly the breaking point.

What happens if Trump, in a fit of pique, decides that the world doesn't deserve to survive if he doesn't stay in power?



This is all much funnier when you learn to laugh at doom.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 07:03 PM

The problem with a comparison between Soleimani and Bin Ladin, is that Bin Ladin wasn't a country's top general. He was tolerated and sometimes supported by Pakistan's ISI, but the civilian leaders of Pakistan kept their distance. Killing top politicians or military leaders is understood to be a very disruptive tactic (cutting off the head of the snake), because things get very unpredictable when you do that. And once that is done, it is highly likely they do it to your guys, too.

Of course, they probably won't kill Trump because that would actually help America. If I was a four star General, I would be wary.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 07:05 PM

Quote:
This is all much funnier when you learn to laugh at doom.


I would like to collect some Social Security. I paid in for about 50 years.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 07:41 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
This is all much funnier when you learn to laugh at doom.


I would like to collect some Social Security. I paid in for about 50 years.


I'd like to have potable water available when I'm 80, and that's just as likely.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 07:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
The problem with a comparison between Soleimani and Bin Ladin, is that Bin Ladin wasn't a country's top general. He was tolerated and sometimes supported by Pakistan's ISI, but the civilian leaders of Pakistan kept their distance. Killing top politicians or military leaders is understood to be a very disruptive tactic (cutting off the head of the snake), because things get very unpredictable when you do that. And once that is done, it is highly likely they do it to your guys, too.

Of course, they probably won't kill Trump because that would actually help America. If I was a four star General, I would be wary.


Not just that, but political assassinations always carry a great whacking load of unintended consequences, and almost NEVER work out the way the assassins imagine they would.

Bin Laden wasn't an assassination. He was a criminal on the run that was eventually killed. Nobody actually gave a s***, because he wasn't part of anyone's idea of nationalism.

Contrast that with the assassination of Lincoln, which made life far, far harder on the South.

Or the assassination of MLK, which did more for his cause than anything he did in life.

I am sitting here wracking my brain trying to think of one assassination that worked out the way the assassin(s) hoped.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl


I am sitting here wracking my brain trying to think of one assassination that worked out the way the assassin(s) hoped.


I swear on a stack of Bibles that I said those exact words to my wife just last night! LOL
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 08:19 PM

Well, anyway, calling Soleimani a terrorist is a category error.

He was a commissioned officer working under the auspices of his nation. You'd think the right wingers would latch onto that, because it makes Iran even more culpable, but when you say it, everyone starts screeching that you love Iran and hate America.

Thing is, category errors are the worst kind of mistake, because they blind you to reality a piece at a time, and eventually you have what is called an "outside context problem", because you can no longer see things coming as they exist in the real world.

It's worth mentioning that any given individual or group that has an outside context event will only have one, because they typically aren't around long enough to have another one.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 09:25 PM

https://apnews.com/4538ee9743166ddb9cbe31d420fb4fc0

Quote:
More than 300 people were killed in the anti-government protests, according to rights organization Amnesty International. During the violence and in the days that followed, Iranian authorities blocked access to the internet.

Soleimani’s killing, however, helped rally the public around the leadership again.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/09/20 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
I am sitting here wracking my brain trying to think of one assassination that worked out the way the assassin(s) hoped.
I swear on a stack of Bibles that I said those exact words to my wife just last night! LOL

I avoid talking to my wife about such things - she might get some unpleasant ideas...
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/10/20 12:53 AM

Adm Yamamoto
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/10/20 01:22 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: Greger
...Trump needed a distraction from the impeachment. An Osama Bin Laden moment would be just the thing. Soleimani drew the short straw.

...but as usual, Trump is the one who drew the short straw because he's incompetent.

No American knew who Soleimani was until he died.


Uh, this American definitely did, as did pretty much everyone else who follows CT and foreign policy. It wasn't Trump who had him designated as a terrorist, but Obama.

Quote:
Bin Ladin was HUGELY famous in the United States. As just like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before Soleimani, nobody in the U.S. knew who he was.

Therein lies Trump's "problem." He's trying to score Obama-like victories, but keeps falling short of the apex Obama established because Trump keeps picking guys who nobody has heard of.


We suffered a lot for the bin Laden raid. That doesn't mean it wasn't worth it, but we paid a price for it in lives (Pakistan spiked support to the Taliban and stopped playing ball in the CT realm). The Jury is still out on the price we'll pay for Soleimani.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/10/20 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Adm Yamamoto


That was my first thought as well. abu Bakr al-Baghdadi comes to mind as well.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/10/20 10:33 PM

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not part of a real government, so his killing was not an assassination in the political sense. Pretty much everybody agreed ISIS was not a nation despite their caliphate nonsense.

Admiral Yamamoto was killed during a declared war when flying in a Japanese bomber that was attacked by US fighter jets in an active area of conflict. Assassination was the intent, but the fact that it was a completely legal act of war makes it very different from the assassinations were were considering.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 01:27 AM

Quote:
The Jury is still out on the price we'll pay for Soleimani.

There's an $80 million dollar prize for Trump's head. His sons like to travel abroad to shoot endangered species...not too high a price to get rid of a rogue dictator.

He has been declared a dangerous terrorist by Iranians so it wouldn't even be a crime.

Do you remember the tales of the old Hashishins? Assassins who answered to Rashid ad-Din Sinan, the Old Man of the Mountain. Persians have been playing this assassination game for a long time...
Posted by: logtroll

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 02:21 AM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Bin Laden wasn't an assassination.

Bin Laden was authorized by the AUMF.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 05:32 PM

Targeted killing or if you like more correctly political/military assassination.

Read about the Adm Yamamoto affair in Operation Vengeance. The name tells the story.

Read about extrajudicial killing in almost anything about targeted killing. Is it legal? AUMF does not answer the question whether it is legal. It only provides people with a semblance of legal cover. Kinda like the John Yoo memo on torture or it's not torture if I say it is not torture.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL
...everyone else who follows CT...

What is "CT?" Hmm
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 07:35 PM

Sure they meant to kill Yamamoto to demoralize his troops, so it's like a terrorist act. But the fact is he was in a warplane, in an area of conflict, and that plane was a legitimate enemy target in a declared war. NOT a war crime at all. That's very different from disassembling a journalist with a reciprocating saw when he visits his embassy in a third country. Now THAT was an assassination.

Let me make this clear: I don't think killing Soleimani was a crime so much as just stupid. Sensible military and political leaders had that option for a long time but thought it had negative value. Trump blundered into it because he's Trump. He needed a distraction from being impeached and he's flailing about. This won't be the last stupid thing he does. Let's just give him a set of codes that don't really launch the nukes, but instead notify Pence to start an Amendment 25 action.

Although it would be funny if somebody collects on that 80 million. Like some criminal organization in some third world country when he goes to meet Kim or something.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 11:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not part of a real government


Based on what? The Islamic State had defined borders, a tax policy, a monetary policy, exercised sovereignty over violence within a geographically continuous territory.... they fixed potholes, had social welfare programs, and conducted foreign policy. what definition of Government did they fail to meet?

Quote:

Admiral Yamamoto was killed during a declared war when flying in a Japanese bomber that was attacked by US fighter jets in an active area of conflict. Assassination was the intent, but the fact that it was a completely legal act of war makes it very different from the assassinations were were considering.


Adm Yamamoto was the target of that attack, and the purpose of that attack. It wasn't an accident or happenstance - we knew where he would be traveling, when, and decided to kill him specifically en route.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/11/20 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: CPWILL
...everyone else who follows CT...

What is "CT?" Hmm


smile My bad - Counter Terrorism Policy.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 01:21 AM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL
smile My bad - Counter Terrorism Policy.

Is that a subscription magazine that I can subscribe to? coffee
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 04:53 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not part of a real government, so his killing was not an assassination in the political sense. Pretty much everybody agreed ISIS was not a nation despite their caliphate nonsense.

Admiral Yamamoto was killed during a declared war when flying in a Japanese bomber that was attacked by US fighter jets in an active area of conflict. Assassination was the intent, but the fact that it was a completely legal act of war makes it very different from the assassinations were were considering.


I imagine Yamamoto was surprised to be attacked by jets.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 04:58 AM

Holy farking crap!!

Report: Trump Cited GOP Senate Impeachment Pressure As Reason to Kill Soleimani

Quote:
Deep inside a long, detailed Wall Street Journal report about President Trump’s foreign policy advisers is an explosive nugget: “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said.” This is a slightly stronger iteration of a fact the New York Times reported three days ago, to wit, “pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle.”


In a normal world, openly stating such a thing would be grounds for not only impeachment but for 25A from the standpoint of, "He's a ****ing madman raging out of control."
Instead, Trumpers interpret that as "leftists mourning the death of terrorists.", which is beyond reprehensibility and beyond despicable.

Killing any foreign leader in the rules of war call for a need to follow through with a strike that grave against another state, it cannot, at that level, be a standalone act. Iran has stated that the return strike to the airbase was their official response but nowhere has Iran said that they consider the matter closed. Nor would Iran ever telegraph their true plans and intent, because that is the kind of action a madman takes.
Thus the matter is not closed.
Everyone around President Trump already knows this, they understand what is being said in between the lines.
The GOP Senate majority knows this as well.
If they don't, they damn well ****ing better.

They also know that if they really do extend President Trump anything at all, short of a proper and fair trial, with witnesses and evidence, he will interpret it as a victory lap.

If anyone in either party in either chamber says that they are not the least bit apprehensive about the prospect of Trump Unchained...they are lying.
Taking official state action for the purposes of responding to impeachment pressure equals taking state action for the express purpose of benefiting one's personal political ambitions and distorting the foreign policy of the United States.

It's also a direct violation of the Oath of Office, because to commit such an act and then to admit that it was for a whim, increases the threat level from the target country. That is directly inviting and promulgating an attack on America and American personnel, assets and interests.

The man is openly admitting that he decided to do the whole thing to protect his sorry criminal ass, at the expense of the country's security.
And I haven't even yet mentioned anything about the fact that these other countries will now forever use events such as this, and the historical record of the actions and conscience of this madman to illustrate to their students "why freedom, democracy and secularism is the most dangerous form of government in the world."

This is what we have, in the sum of all things, left them as our legacy.
And yet, Trumpers accuse US of "mourning for terrorists."
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 05:08 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not part of a real government


Quote:
Based on what?


Quote:
Its adoption of the name Islamic State and its idea of a caliphate have been widely criticised, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups vehemently rejecting its statehood.
from Wikipedia


Apparently that's the opinion of almost everybody else on Earth.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 05:24 AM

Quote:
I imagine Yamamoto was surprised to be attacked by jets.


My mistake. They were P-38s, like my stepfather used to fly. The only jets used in combat were German at that time, though Britain and the US had some flying.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 05:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas

The sooner Americans vote that impulsive incompetent out of Office, the better.

Hmm
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was not part of a real government


Quote:
Based on what?


Quote:
Its adoption of the name Islamic State and its idea of a caliphate have been widely criticised, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups vehemently rejecting its statehood.
from Wikipedia


Apparently that's the opinion of almost everybody else on Earth.


Ah. You are saying that no one else accepted them as a legitimate government. Fair enough. My point was that functionally - as in, what they were, regardless of whether or not we were willing to say so in public - they were a State.

If you mean "we didn't recognize the Islamic State so killing abu Bakr wasn't bad", I have to ask: If we declared we no longer recognized the Iranian regime, wouldn't this same logic mean that there was no longer such a hindrance in killing its members?
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: CPWILL
smile My bad - Counter Terrorism Policy.

Is that a subscription magazine that I can subscribe to? coffee


smile No, it's an area of foreign and security policy, though I would recommend Long War Journal if you are interested in following a publication.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/12/20 08:49 PM

Chunk,
I think its important to understand that ISIS was an IRAQI spin off. It was composed of people who used to be Iraqi military or police who were promised, by the United States that their jobs would be safe if they stayed out of fighting our invasion (we dropped millions of leaflets promising that one). Then they all got fired and rioted about it because that was not what they promised. Then the really pissed off ones started fighting with the United States Army. They lost and then the ISIS leader appeared and you know all the rest.

Oh, now Iraq just wants us gone. They have been rioting for that one for months (as well as corruption and Iran). We are not the beloved rescuers we think we were. We left over 200,000 dead after we left the first time. Lord only knows how many more we will leave this time around.

Just thought you should know.............
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/13/20 12:48 AM

Quote:
Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that he did not see tangible evidence showing that Iran planned to strike four U.S. embassies, despite President Trump’s claims that an attack at multiple embassies was “imminent.”
link

So Donald Trump lied to the Defense Secretary to get someone killed to distract from impeachment.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/13/20 01:25 AM

He can't even decide what he thinks the WORD "IMMINENT" even means!
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/13/20 02:03 AM

Quote:
If we declared we no longer recognized the Iranian regime, wouldn't this same logic mean that there was no longer such a hindrance in killing its members?


No, because everybody else in the world recognizes Iran as a sovereign state. If anybody can just declare themselves sovereign, and that makes them sovereign, that's the same argument as our so-called Sovereign Citizens. Nobody else thinks they are sovereign, so they are just criminals when they break laws. Same for beheading, kidnapping, keeping sex slaves, etc. All things ISIS did.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/16/20 05:30 PM

I hadn't jumped in yet, but I thought I ought to. I'm starting with HH's post because it sets up the discussion well:
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Well, anyway, calling Soleimani a terrorist is a category error.

He was a commissioned officer working under the auspices of his nation. You'd think the right wingers would latch onto that, because it makes Iran even more culpable, but when you say it, everyone starts screeching that you love Iran and hate America.

Thing is, category errors are the worst kind of mistake, because they blind you to reality a piece at a time, and eventually you have what is called an "outside context problem", because you can no longer see things coming as they exist in the real world.

It's worth mentioning that any given individual or group that has an outside context event will only have one, because they typically aren't around long enough to have another one.
The assassination (definitionally) of Suleimani was, again, definitionally, an "act of war."

His designation as a "terrorist" is a political, not a legal designation. Legally, he was an officer in the Iranian military. Legally, we are not at war with Iran. Because we are not at war with Iran, legally, attacking Iranian military targets is an act of aggression, thus an "act of war" under both international law and U.S. domestic law. BTW, it should be noted Iran has also conducted a number of acts of war against the United States, including shooting down a drone.

What made Suleimani a "legitimate" target is his participation in combat activities in war zones. Iraq is one of them, as is Syria. His participation in these activities removes many of his sovereign protections (i.e., his status as an Iranian military officer). If he had merely been a "collateral effect" of an otherwise legitimate military operation (which we are legally authorized to conduct in Iraq), there would be no problem with this result. Oops, our bad! A little closer is his participation in activities hostile to United States troops, although it would be more difficult to prove that.

But the biggest problem isn't the legal one, it is the practical, tactical, strategic one. We have given up the high ground. Suleimani was, legitimately, the head of Iran's equivalent of Director of the CIA or Commander of US Special Forces Command. Do we want our officers and directors to be legitimate targets of Iran, or Russia, or Syria or any other agency with an axe to grind?
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/16/20 06:38 PM

Should probably mention that Iran has now called the Army of the United States a terrorist organization.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/17/20 12:47 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I hadn't jumped in yet, but I thought I ought to. I'm starting with HH's post because it sets up the discussion well:
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Well, anyway, calling Soleimani a terrorist is a category error.

He was a commissioned officer working under the auspices of his nation. You'd think the right wingers would latch onto that, because it makes Iran even more culpable, but when you say it, everyone starts screeching that you love Iran and hate America.

Thing is, category errors are the worst kind of mistake, because they blind you to reality a piece at a time, and eventually you have what is called an "outside context problem", because you can no longer see things coming as they exist in the real world.

It's worth mentioning that any given individual or group that has an outside context event will only have one, because they typically aren't around long enough to have another one.
The assassination (definitionally) of Suleimani was, again, definitionally, an "act of war."

His designation as a "terrorist" is a political, not a legal designation. Legally, he was an officer in the Iranian military. Legally, we are not at war with Iran. Because we are not at war with Iran, legally, attacking Iranian military targets is an act of aggression, thus an "act of war" under both international law and U.S. domestic law. BTW, it should be noted Iran has also conducted a number of acts of war against the United States, including shooting down a drone.

What made Suleimani a "legitimate" target is his participation in combat activities in war zones. Iraq is one of them, as is Syria. His participation in these activities removes many of his sovereign protections (i.e., his status as an Iranian military officer). If he had merely been a "collateral effect" of an otherwise legitimate military operation (which we are legally authorized to conduct in Iraq), there would be no problem with this result. Oops, our bad! A little closer is his participation in activities hostile to United States troops, although it would be more difficult to prove that.

But the biggest problem isn't the legal one, it is the practical, tactical, strategic one. We have given up the high ground. Suleimani was, legitimately, the head of Iran's equivalent of Director of the CIA or Commander of US Special Forces Command. Do we want our officers and directors to be legitimate targets of Iran, or Russia, or Syria or any other agency with an axe to grind?


This is a thoughtful take, but I have to ask; what, exactly, do you think it is Iran has been doing, if not targeting our personnel? If the worry is "Well Iran May Decide To Try To Get Some American Officers Killed", well, that boat has long since sailed.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/17/20 01:46 AM

Quote:
what, exactly, do you think it is Iran has been doing, if not targeting our personnel?
Or one could ask what is the US doing in Iraq, threatening Iranian sovereignty?

So the question is would Iran be targeting US military personnel if the US was no int Iraq? or Afghanistan?

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 and only the Iranians seem know it.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/17/20 03:32 AM

Quote:
one could ask what is the US doing in Iraq, threatening Iranian sovereignty?


I could get more upset with Iran if they were stationing troops in Canada and lobbing missiles into Michigan.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/17/20 05:06 AM

think 1962 ... one of my uncles was flying 30 days in the air a SAC bomber ...

yeah paranoid folks get batsheiscrazy if you make a move which looks like a threat
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/17/20 05:43 AM

The main problem is that killing Suleimani sets up an Iranian assassination of an American Secretary of Defense or Commander-In-Chief as tit-for-tat in the eyes of all the other countries of the world. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Which Republicans don't seem to understand.

They do stuff they would scream about if the Democrats did to them, with no thoughts about next week, or next year when power shifts the other way. Like refusing to vote on Merrick Garland. Do they think they can do that and not have it done back to them? Or changing Senate rules so a simple majority is all that's required to get their way? What happens when the Senate shifts back to a slight Democratic majority?
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 12:07 AM

We f*ck 'em square in the ass is what happens.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
what, exactly, do you think it is Iran has been doing, if not targeting our personnel?
Or one could ask what is the US doing in Iraq, threatening Iranian sovereignty?


Only if one did not understand the difference between those two countries. American troops in Iraq do not threaten Iranian sovereignty. They mitigate Iranian regional dominance.

Quote:
So the question is would Iran be targeting US military personnel if the US was no int Iraq? or Afghanistan?


Well they were doing it before we went into those places, and have continued to do it since, so, the answer is "yes".

However, I reject the premise of the question (as it is often posed). Iran is not entitled to kill Americans simply because we responded to the 9/11 attacks by removing the Taliban, and then tried to actually help Afghanistan form a government, instead of merely leaving it in blood and destruction and chaos.

Quote:
We have been at war with Iran since 1979 and only the Iranians seem know it.


True.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
The main problem is that killing Suleimani sets up an Iranian assassination of an American Secretary of Defense or Commander-In-Chief as tit-for-tat in the eyes of all the other countries of the world. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Which Republicans don't seem to understand.


Again, this point, while sounding detached and reasonable, is (respectfully) deliberately ignorant of some rather key context points:

1. Soleimani was orchestrating attacks on American diplomatic facilities and personnel. Until we struck Soleimani, U.S. military leadership was not doing likewise to Iranian personnel or diplomatic facilities.

2. Iran is already trying to kill U.S. officers and leadership, and has been for years.

So, it is not that we need worry we have started a campaign of tit-for-tat. It is that we finally responded with a tat to years of their tits. wink

Quote:
They do stuff they would scream about if the Democrats did to them, with no thoughts about next week, or next year when power shifts the other way.


Hey, that's funny smile You sound like me, back during the Obama Administration.

Quote:
Like refusing to vote on Merrick Garland. Do they think they can do that and not have it done back to them? Or changing Senate rules so a simple majority is all that's required to get their way?


Fun Fact - Twas a gentleman named Harry Reid who changed that rule wink

Majorities on both sides tend to have a weird tendency to forget history, and assume they are permanent.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 06:08 PM

Trump stated that Soleimani was the worst terrorist on the planet, as a primary reason for taking him out. Yet Soleimani and the Quds are not on the Global Terrorist Index (top ten list, at least). Trump was lying. Why?

Another curiosity is that ISIS was #2 on the list, and the Quds were effective at controlling ISIS. Weird that they actually have anti-terrorist cred.

My last comment is that I can't seem to find through Google specific examples of Soleimani terrorist acts. I'm not saying he didn't do bad stuff, but I have not found any descriptions of such. That seems unusual since he was so bad that Trump needed to assassinate him to protect us.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 06:35 PM

Suliemani's assassination had nothing to do with any war on terror.

His name was pulled out of a hat by Trump's generally ill-informed advisers as a rah rah rah wrap yourself in the flag distraction from impeachment.

The US has actively been trying to start a war with Iran for years.

John Bolten has been actively pursuing that goal for years and was recently added to Trump's top tier of the best people.

Iranians don't like their own government but they have not forgotten the the good ole USA is the one that deposed their democratic government and installed a monarch to rule over them in 1953. The result of that meddling is what got them the revolution and their current theocracy.

US imperialism turned their weaker neighbor(Iraq) into a desolate sandpit and they are now using it as a staging area to attack Iran.
Control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz is the reason, not "terrorism".

Pretending anything else is going on is purely a flight of fantasy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/18/20 07:15 PM

Quote:
I can't seem to find through Google specific examples of Soleimani terrorist acts.


That's because there are none. The entire narrative seems to be made up out of whole cloth. Iran has no reason to be our friend and working against Saudi/American interests is simply in the best interest of Iranians.

There is no "war on terrorism" there is only the war for oil.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 03:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Suliemani's assassination had nothing to do with any war on terror.

His name was pulled out of a hat by Trump's generally ill-informed advisers as a rah rah rah wrap yourself in the flag distraction from impeachment.


Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about, here, and appear to be making this up because it validates the low opinion you have and wish to reinforce of an administration that, agreeably, often makes terrible foreign policy decisions.

Quote:
The US has actively been trying to start a war with Iran for years.


Incorrect. Were we attempting to do so, we would have actually - well - done so when Iran gave us ample cause to ramp up last summer/early fall. Instead, we decided to pull back, they interpreted that as weakness, and so they continued to ratchet up their provocations.

Quote:
John Bolten has been actively pursuing that goal for years and was recently added to Trump's top tier of the best people.


And then fired mostly because he had the attitude you are accusing Trump of holding, and burned a lot of his credibility with POTUS over it.

Donald Trump has been pushing - irresponsibly - for us to rush out of Afghanistan, and pushing - irresponsibly - for us to get out of Syria. Where he has been restrained from simply pulling the plug on the Middle East, it has been mostly due to the efforts of the intelligent and experienced foreign policy experts around him (former Secretary Mattis, for example), who often eventually pay for their intervention with their jobs.

I realize that Orange Man Bad is an organizing principle for many on the left, but the degree to which the claim that he is a pro-interventionist war-mongerer seeking to expand our military adventures in the middle east is utterly divorced from the available evidence is just...

It reminds me of the early internet fools who would assure me - in the same post! - that George W Bush was a complete and utter incompetent idiot, but also an incredibly dark genius, capably manipulating world events for his own, pre-known, evil ends.

Quote:
Iranians don't like their own government but they have not forgotten the the good ole USA is the one that deposed their democratic government and installed a monarch to rule over them in 1953. The result of that meddling is what got them the revolution and their current theocracy.


This is also incorrect. Recommend The Unthinkable Revolution for a well-written and accessible breakdown of what we know of how, where, when, and why revolutions happen and succeed, and how those theories apply to the Iranian case.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 06:16 PM

My opinions have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump. This all started long before Republicans proved me right about them by electing him.

Your take on the whole thing is amusingly consistent with Republican propaganda, but you'll have to pardon me for not buying into that whole story.

I believe global warming is real and man made too, so my opinions are likely beneath you and unworthy of response.

Every day Republicans get another chance to change my mind about them. Every day they reinforce the disdain I feel for them.

Oil. It's about the oil. We are the terrorists, they the victims.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 07:48 PM

At the risk of repeating myself. I think we should get out of that area of the world, completely out! It has, over the years, cost us huge amounts of treasure (Afghanistan, right now, is costing something like 4 billion a month). There have been no successes - NONE! They have nothing we need. Not one administration, not one, has had any success doing a damn thing there. Its just an American money pit, nothing more, nothing less.

GET US THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! (its just not a place to do good works - it doesn't work)
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 09:40 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
At the risk of repeating myself. I think we should get out of that area of the world, completely out! It has, over the years, cost us huge amounts of treasure (Afghanistan, right now, is costing something like 4 billion a month). There have been no successes - NONE! They have nothing we need. Not one administration, not one, has had any success doing a damn thing there. Its just an American money pit, nothing more, nothing less.

GET US THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! (its just not a place to do good works - it doesn't work)


:applaud:

You sound just like Bernie Sanders! He wants outa there too. The corporatists don't. They're invested in the military industrial complex, you know how many jobs would be lost if we weren't producing, using, and selling weapons over there? Or, perhaps more importantly how much corporate profit would be lost? Trump just gave the industry a huge boost with his murder of General Soliemani.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 09:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
My opinions have absolutely nothing to do with Donald Trump.


Then you are unfortunately blind to process knowledge as well as material knowledge regarding the background of this particular decision. POTUS is the one who has to approve actions like this.

Quote:
This all started long before Republicans proved me right about them by electing him.


Republicans nominating someone who thought all the wars in the Middle East were stupid and who said he would negotiate our way out of them with his super-duper-extra-amazing-negotiation-skills confirmed your suspicion that they were warmongerers?

Fascinating. Does the democrat nomination of Hillary Clinton prove that they are misogynists who will never give a woman a chance?

Quote:
Your take on the whole thing is amusingly consistent with Republican propaganda, but you'll have to pardon me for not buying into that whole story.


On the contrary, if you will go back and read you will note that I am consistently critical of Trump's foreign policy where it goes astray (as it so. often. does. when he gets involved). His earlier weakness and failure to react to provocation helped get us to where we are today.

Quote:
I believe global warming is real and man made too, so my opinions are likely beneath you and unworthy of response.


Not at all. Many intelligent people believe as you do. Personally I find it completely plausible that mankinds' activities are having a warming effect on the world, and simply note that:

A) Those who believe in complete anthropogenic warming keep making predictions that get disproven. In science, as I dimly recall, when a hypothesis' predictions are consistently disproven, the hypothesis is supposed to be rejected.

B) It is extremely unlikely that we understand the complex interactions that drive that process with the confidence levels that those who argue most forthrightly for complete anthropogenic warming claim.


.....and, additionally, when I'm at my more cynical, I note that:

C) The activists and leaders in that movement don't seem to actually take the threat they are pitching as seriously as they claim, as they keep taking personal actions that would make the problem they describe worse, and reject technologies that would make the problem they describe better.

Quote:
Every day Republicans get another chance to change my mind about them. Every day they reinforce the disdain I feel for them.


Yes. That's called Confirmation Bias.

Quote:
Oil. It's about the oil. We are the terrorists, they the victims.


If it was all about the oil, we'd be taking the oil, as Trump so irresponsibly and foolishly suggested. You'll note that not only are we not doing this, but have become net exporters. We aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan today because of oil, but because of terrorism.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/19/20 09:50 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
At the risk of repeating myself. I think we should get out of that area of the world, completely out! It has, over the years, cost us huge amounts of treasure (Afghanistan, right now, is costing something like 4 billion a month). There have been no successes - NONE! They have nothing we need. Not one administration, not one, has had any success doing a damn thing there. Its just an American money pit, nothing more, nothing less.

GET US THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! (its just not a place to do good works - it doesn't work)


A nice simple suggestion. It even fits well on a bumper sticker, and, I agree, there is a definite emotional pull to it.


How well did that strategy work out, oh, say, when we tried it in Iraq back in 2012? Everything been hunky dory there since then?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 12:47 AM

Even Trump says it's all about the oil, right in Fox News interviews. Or the money those oil-rich countries can pay us for our troops to guard their oil so American oil companies can "help" them market it. And any terrorism seems to be in response to us being there to "protect" that oil from the people of those same countries. If you only look at pieces of the problem, then every American action seems reasonable. If you stand way back and look at the big picture, not so much.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 01:06 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Even Trump says it's all about the oil, right in Fox News interviews.


Trump also tried to get the President of Ukraine to investigate a mythical server which he thought would prove that the Russians didn't try to interfere in U.S. domestic politics in 2016.

If your basis for understanding U.S. national interests is "Well Trump Said On TV That...."

He's POTUS and he gets to make decisions. But, unless he's reading from a script, he says whatever comes into his mind half a second before he says it.

Quote:
Or the money those oil-rich countries can pay us for our troops to guard their oil so American oil companies can "help" them market it. And any terrorism seems to be in response to us being there to "protect" that oil from the people of those same countries.


Actually a lot of it started with anger at thinks like American men and women dancing together, considering life insurance something they can talk openly about, and the seeping of western values into arabic culture (especially that). Conspiracy theories attempting to explain away Israel's victory in the 1967 Six-Day War (the widespread belief was that it was America who attacked Egypt and Syria, not Israel, and that, therefore, the Arabs had not been soundly defeated by the Jews, because that would have been really embarrassing) played a role, as did anger at the Saudi Royal Family for spurning offers of help in favor of the international coalition (lover scorned, and all that).

A lot of it is also based on presence, sure. But to attack the U.S., drawing the U.S. into your region, and then to blame them for being in your region is a bit like the boy who murdered his parents begging clemency from the court on account of his being an orphan.

Quote:
If you only look at pieces of the problem, then every American action seems reasonable. If you stand way back and look at the big picture, not so much.


Well agreeably I've only been really studying this for about 17 years now, but, I can't concur.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 03:44 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL
Originally Posted By: jgw
At the risk of repeating myself. I think we should get out of that area of the world, completely out! It has, over the years, cost us huge amounts of treasure (Afghanistan, right now, is costing something like 4 billion a month). There have been no successes - NONE! They have nothing we need. Not one administration, not one, has had any success doing a damn thing there. Its just an American money pit, nothing more, nothing less.

GET US THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! (its just not a place to do good works - it doesn't work)


A nice simple suggestion. It even fits well on a bumper sticker, and, I agree, there is a definite emotional pull to it.


How well did that strategy work out, oh, say, when we tried it in Iraq back in 2012? Everything been hunky dory there since then?


When we say "get out", we mean "get out completely."
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 03:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: CPWILL
Originally Posted By: jgw
At the risk of repeating myself. I think we should get out of that area of the world, completely out! It has, over the years, cost us huge amounts of treasure (Afghanistan, right now, is costing something like 4 billion a month). There have been no successes - NONE! They have nothing we need. Not one administration, not one, has had any success doing a damn thing there. Its just an American money pit, nothing more, nothing less.

GET US THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! (its just not a place to do good works - it doesn't work)


A nice simple suggestion. It even fits well on a bumper sticker, and, I agree, there is a definite emotional pull to it.


How well did that strategy work out, oh, say, when we tried it in Iraq back in 2012? Everything been hunky dory there since then?


When we say "get out", we mean "get out completely."


Yes. I'm pointing out that the last time we tried this emotionally-appealing-but-unwise strategy, the result was that ISIS became for all intents and purposes a nation state and started inspiring/launching attacks in the West, forcing us to go back.

If I can steal from Christopher Hitchens - lack of action by the United States doesn't mean that "nothing happens". It means something else happens.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 05:34 PM

Welp, looks like endless war is the only answer.

Thanks for solving that dilemma.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Welp, looks like endless war is the only answer.

Thanks for solving that dilemma.


Well, we tried outlawing it and ending it once, back after WWI. The results were less than desirable.

We live in a world of trade-offs and tragic realities. There are no "solutions", only better ways to manage permanent human conditions.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL


Yes. I'm pointing out that the last time we tried this emotionally-appealing-but-unwise strategy, the result was that ISIS became for all intents and purposes a nation state and started inspiring/launching attacks in the West, forcing us to go back.


And ISIS became a nation state because we "fixed" the Middle East ("stabilizin' the region"). ISIS began in 1999, but got precisely nowhere because the local strongmen beat the blue Jesus out of them every time they stuck their heads up. So we take out the strongmen, because they're big meanies and How those bad guys got there in the first place.

Every time we get ourselves involved in an open ended (goals-wise) conflict - which is almost every conflict we've been in - we make bigger monsters than we get rid of.

And then we forget that WE made those monsters, when it's time for the next iteration.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: CPWILL


Yes. I'm pointing out that the last time we tried this emotionally-appealing-but-unwise strategy, the result was that ISIS became for all intents and purposes a nation state and started inspiring/launching attacks in the West, forcing us to go back.


And ISIS became a nation state because we "fixed" the Middle East ("stabilizin' the region"). ISIS began in 1999, but got precisely nowhere because the local strongmen beat the blue Jesus out of them every time they stuck their heads up. So we take out the strongmen, because they're big meanies and How those bad guys got there in the first place.

Every time we get ourselves involved in an open ended (goals-wise) conflict - which is almost every conflict we've been in - we make bigger monsters than we get rid of.

And then we forget that WE made those monsters, when it's time for the next iteration.


1. There is no "fixing" the Middle East because there is no "fixing" humanity. There are no "solutions", only better means to manage permanent problems.

2. And nothing above answers the point - you seem, respectfully to be operating from the assumption that the opposite of "bad" results in foreign affairs is "good" results. While that can - sometimes - happen, the opposite of "bad" results is usually "absolutely terrifyingly destructive" results.

3. Though it's also convenient and easy to simply pick a single actor (say, the U.S.) and blame them for everything that happens, your narrative here is also inaccurate. The U.S. is not responsible for the Arab Spring playing out the way it did in Syria, and to the extent that our actions played a role in the rise of ISIS as a nation-state, it was our refusal to act against it until it was too late to stop it from doing so.




We tried the "let's just not pull out" approach in 2012. The result was that the region spun into crises, and launched an incredibly bloody double-set of civil wars that have since:

1. Created one of if not the largest refugee crises in the history of the post-war era

2. Killed so many people we have stopped counting

3. Seriously weakened if not potentially set NATO up to be crippled

4. Produced attacks in the West

5. Created a next-generation regional threat in the form of the tens of thousands of foreign fighters who have now received training, experience, and radicalization on the battlefield.


And so, the argument is.... "At least we didn't interfere until after all that had happened. How horrible it would have been had we stopped some of it."?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:02 PM

Quote:
American troops in Iraq do not threaten Iranian sovereignty
Patently false from almost any perspective except perhaps for the apologetic.

You provided a peek from only recent years as if that recounts the whole story. Much like the Jews writing their history we have to start at the genesis of the relationship. Let's start with 1953. Does that ring a bell?

I won't retell the whole story because you already know it, but let me remind you of the more recent language American leaders have used ... regime change. Now can you honestly say the Iranians would conclude having American soldiers on it's border is not an existential threat? But even more this administration has pursued harsher economic sanctions. If I were an Iranian I would have to conclude the US is conducting an economic campaign against the Iranian state as a prelude for regime change.

Should nation states ignore states which threaten them? I think we have seen that movie and read the book several times.

But what is truly strange is all of this is predicated on oil. Unfrakking believable!!!!. We formed relationships with SA first so our allegiance is to Sunnis. Imagine a foreign policy centered on which religious group you align yourself with. Incredible.

This is an example of how conservative paranoia has sent American foreign policy in directions which are antithetical to its own interests. I remember when conservative were taking back their country from Pres Obama ... well the Iranians took back their country from the Americans. Let it go!!!!

Quote:
Well they were doing it before we went into those places
A little help. Why would they target Americans if American were not a threat????

Quote:
Iran is not entitled to kill Americans simply because we responded to the 9/11 attacks by removing the Taliban, and then tried to actually help Afghanistan form a government, instead of merely leaving it in blood and destruction and chaos.
We did not try to remove the Taliban because of 911. We did it because Mullah Omar, who at first agreed to turn over Bin Ladin, reneged. At that point you can begin all the justifications you can muster for nation building, killing the Taliban, etc. However the bottom line is by having an American presence on Irans southern border ... and knowing the then current administration was in favor of regime change .... I think you can finish the argument.

Look I believe American foreign policy has been frakked since post-WWII by conservative paranoia. The capitalists in America fear everyone is going to take away their money, so they gained influence in foreign policy to insure the dominance of the capitalists, especially over the Russian communists. I believe we should bite the bullet, wipe the foreign policy slate clean and start a pragmatic agenda to implement American interests. I can see a middle east where we don't favor Sunnis over Shias, but treat them equally, or where there is a genuine equitable 2 state solution implemented, or where we meet the Chinese head on in the economic front, etc.

I am not in favor of one idea over the other ... just saying what is. As long as we are at war with Iran ... there will be blood.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:04 PM

Yep, war is the answer. The occupation must continue. For the good of all mankind. War is Peace.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:04 PM

You mean nuclear winter is coming.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL

1. There is no "fixing" the Middle East because there is no "fixing" humanity. There are no "solutions", only better means to manage permanent problems.


But we aren't managing the problems, nor are our attempts making anything better. While I agree that ISIS had to go, perhaps if we stopped meddling in other peoples' business, we wouldn't have ISIS to deal with.

Quote:
2. And nothing above answers the point - you seem, respectfully to be operating from the assumption that the opposite of "bad" results in foreign affairs is "good" results. While that can - sometimes - happen, the opposite of "bad" results is usually "absolutely terrifyingly destructive" results.


Okay, I'll bite; what terrifyingly destructive results would we have suffered for just leaving Saddam Hussein in power in the first place?

Quote:
3. Though it's also convenient and easy to simply pick a single actor (say, the U.S.) and blame them for everything that happens, your narrative here is also inaccurate. The U.S. is not responsible for the Arab Spring playing out the way it did in Syria, and to the extent that our actions played a role in the rise of ISIS as a nation-state, it was our refusal to act against it until it was too late to stop it from doing so.


Isis gaining control of that region recently is a direct result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:41 PM

Ahhhh! You mean why in the hell didn't we get ALL THE WAY OUT? Anybody who has watched us and the middle east knew it would go south as soon as they had the 'opportunity'. Its the middle eastern way!

The solution remains - get the hell out of there, ALL THE WAY OUT! There is, absolutely, no other choice. Its kinda like Afghanistan, the grave yard of empires. Alexander the Great understood and got out, the British Empire understood and got out, even Russia got the hell out. All that being said the Americans, who have the greatest army the world has ever seen, has obviously known better so we throw 4 billion a month at them to solve the unsolvable.

Again - GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST - ALL THE WAY OUT!

If/When we do that I feel bad for those who believe we will be there forever to save everybody but, there is one simple fact, its the middle east and that is a dream that will NEVER be realized. Instead we have pals like the Saudis (I will refrain from expanding on that as I have do so multiple times).

I also suspect that after we get the hell out of there we fire each and every person who has had anything to do with our staying there in the first place whoever they may be as their interests have absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the United States of America! (Thus spake .........)
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:44 PM

That one has always puzzled me. Trump always says that he is "protecting the oil". Who is he protecting it for? We don't need it, Russia is there to help (I think it was Syrian oil). I don't understand who or why.

On the other hand just about EVERYTHING about the middle east puzzles me.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:46 PM

Unfortunately you are absolutely right. I suspect the same reason can apply to our 20 year war too. Everybody wants to cut things like medicare but cutting anything from the military and the world seems to come apart.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/20/20 08:50 PM

Do you actually believe anything Trump says? Anything? The man is a pathological liar. Even his own attorneys wouldn't allow him to give testimony because they didn't trust him to not lie.

He says whatever comes into his head that will be approved of whoever he is speaking to. Its one of his charming ways! (making everybody happy!)
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Originally Posted By: CPWILL

1. There is no "fixing" the Middle East because there is no "fixing" humanity. There are no "solutions", only better means to manage permanent problems.


But we aren't managing the problems, nor are our attempts making anything better. While I agree that ISIS had to go, perhaps if we stopped meddling in other peoples' business, we wouldn't have ISIS to deal with.


You contradict yourself. If ISIS has "gone" (and, it hasn't, though it has been seriously degraded), then we have, indeed, found a better way to manage that problem than we had previously. Our approach in 2015-2020 led to that issue being managed better than our approach in 2012-2014 (well, mid/late 2014) did.

Again, I think you are reaching for some kind of Solve or Fix or Policy That Makes The Bad Things Stop. That's not how the world works.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: cpwill
2. And nothing above answers the point - you seem, respectfully to be operating from the assumption that the opposite of "bad" results in foreign affairs is "good" results. While that can - sometimes - happen, the opposite of "bad" results is usually "absolutely terrifyingly destructive" results.


Okay, I'll bite; what terrifyingly destructive results would we have suffered for just leaving Saddam Hussein in power in the first place?


:shrug: an interesting counterfactual, but unfortunately not a relevant one to the question being discussed - we have to make decisions here. We don't get to go back in time and say "Oh But What If". There is no "Turn Back The Clock And Make Like Nothing Has Happened" option.

Now, if we were talking about whether or not we should (say) invade and depose the Iranian regime, the experience of regime change in Iraq would be highly relevant (and a warning).

But that's not what we are talking about. We are discussing whether we should trade in our more successful 2015-2020 policy approach for our less successful 2012-2014 policy approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: cpwill
3. Though it's also convenient and easy to simply pick a single actor (say, the U.S.) and blame them for everything that happens, your narrative here is also inaccurate. The U.S. is not responsible for the Arab Spring playing out the way it did in Syria, and to the extent that our actions played a role in the rise of ISIS as a nation-state, it was our refusal to act against it until it was too late to stop it from doing so.


Isis gaining control of that region recently is a direct result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


No. ISIS gaining control of that region was a direct result of the Syrian civil war and an indirect result of the Iraqi state abusing it's Sunni minority, both of which allowed the formerly-hollowed-out AQI to metastasize and grow to a nation-state. To the extent that U.S. policy played a comparable role, it was that we did nothing (which, of course, is also a choice) to stop it.

Now, you can say that, because the 2003 invasion of Iraq left a representative government in place, that it set one of the conditions that was later leveraged to help create the space that ISIS then took advantage of. You could make similar arguments as well about Saddam's decision to keep illegal weapons, the Germans' decision to lie to us about their sourcing, Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait, Sykes-Picot redrawing a map they didn't understand, and a caravan security guard having visions out in the desert roughly 1400+ years ago, all of which set conditions that helped to shape the conflict.

It is a common, but not a terribly insightful sort of history that travels backwards only until they reach a significant action by a particular actor and declares that - AHA! - History Starts HERE!
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 01:06 AM

I'm not sure I much give a rat's ass what happens in the Middle East. They're adults and capable of governing themselves, there is no constitutional mandate that suggests we need to force them to do it one way or another.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 03:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm not sure I much give a rat's ass what happens in the Middle East. They're adults and capable of governing themselves, there is no constitutional mandate that suggests we need to force them to do it one way or another.


As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Obama probably would have continued to delay taking serious action against ISIS. But then they started launching attacks in the West. (shrug)
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm not sure I much give a rat's ass what happens in the Middle East. They're adults and capable of governing themselves, there is no constitutional mandate that suggests we need to force them to do it one way or another.


As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Obama probably would have continued to delay taking serious action against ISIS. But then they started launching attacks in the West. (shrug)


There have been exactly two (2) ISIS attacks in America. One miserable failure that killed exactly no people, and a husband and wife team that killed 14 people in a mass shooting in 2015.

This is worth an endless, non-stop military engagement?

I can see retribution strikes, but not a "forever war".
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 04:47 PM

Quote:
Obama probably would have continued to delay taking serious action against ISIS. But then they started launching attacks in the West.
One speculation. Another would be Pres Obama faced a strong headwind from Republicans regarding US intervention in places other than Iraq (note this may have been for a variety of reasons, almost all of which were simple justifications for the US to be on the border of Iran and opportunities in oil). When Pres Obama gave his infamous (according to Republicans) JV answer about ISIS, the current IC assessment was ISIS was nothing more than a small group in the desert (too bad they didn't have good intel). I suspect Pres Obama would have been more willing than you believe had he had a more accurate assessment of the threat.

It is always amazing how people have opine on history, it is always with 20/20 hindsight. I mean how can you get it wrong.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 06:51 PM

Quote:
you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

No, war doesn't give a feck about me. Your fascination with it and feverish endorsement of it is cute though. Do you believe violence is the answer to all problems?
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:08 PM

Originally Posted By: CPWILL
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm not sure I much give a rat's ass what happens in the Middle East. They're adults and capable of governing themselves, there is no constitutional mandate that suggests we need to force them to do it one way or another.


As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.


In the Middle East? I hardly think anything is of interest to us aside from oil and Israel, in that order too, by the way.

If we were actually paying the TRUE cost of our oil, and that means tacking the cost of our military misadventures to the pump instead of through a series of largely unnamed taxes, you'd see support for the ME dip dramatically overnight because that pump price would be about eleven bucks a gallon overnight.

SO, war is NOT interested in me, OIL companies are interested in war.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:19 PM

CP has made it clear he does not believe oil is a factor in the Middle Eastern wars.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
CP has made it clear he does not believe oil is a factor in the Middle Eastern wars.


Sorry but every single energy expert and every single petroleum company CEO disagrees. So does Trump, who repeatedly insists we can just take the oil.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: Greger
CP has made it clear he does not believe oil is a factor in the Middle Eastern wars.


Sorry but every single energy expert and every single petroleum company CEO disagrees. So does Trump, who repeatedly insists we can just take the oil.


Nobody wants the oil itself.

They want to control the rate at which that oil is allowed to flow to the market. That's what gets you rich like Goddamn pharaohs.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:51 PM

I think he is probably right. The wars in the middle east is based, basically, on the simple fact that Sunnis and Shia have been having a war for over 1000 years. its actually that simple.

Its also interesting that the Iraqis youth are so sick and tired of it that those sides have joined forces to get ALL non Iraqis out of Iraq. I have no idea where that goes but it is interesting and, possibly, the first time both parties have gotten together to do something.

All that being said the fact remains - there is war in the Middle East. Its been going on for over 1000 years and we decided, I don't know when, to help our best pals, the Saudis. That was probably the beginning of spending, literally, trillions of dollars to do a little 'helping' (we LOVE to 'help'!)

ITS TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST - ALL OUT!
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 07:53 PM

And the only card Iran holds in the game is the 26 mile wide Straits of Hormuz. Upstream is the Persian Gulf, from which all Saudi oil flows.
F*ck with Iran enough and they will turn it into a flaming junkyard and turn off the oil spigot American interests rely upon.

We can't just bomb them back to the stone age without looking like big bullies on the world stage so they've got to attack us before the bombing begins. Iranians know what's up though, so all they ever do is the little token counterattacks.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 08:52 PM

We are not actually dependent on Saudi oil: It goes to other countries. But oil is fungible, like money. So any cutoff of Saudi oil would raise the price of oil worldwide, and US oil companies would benefit by selling their US produced oil to those other countries. IS the conflict with Iran a case of oil companies' tail wagging the dog?
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 08:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

No, war doesn't give a feck about me. Your fascination with it and feverish endorsement of it is cute though. Do you believe violence is the answer to all problems?


Violence is always a solution. It is what humans do best.

However, there is appropriate violence, and there is basically worship of violence, and then there is violence porn, which is pretty much a working description of the USA's attitude towards war since the end of WWII.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 08:58 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I think he is probably right. The wars in the middle east is based, basically, on the simple fact that Sunnis and Shia have been having a war for over 1000 years. its actually that simple.


Christians managed their exact same war in just 30 years, but they were way, way more efficient about it, managing to kill 28% of everyone in Germany in that time period.

By the end, the Catholic armies were almost entirely composed of Protestant mercenaries, and vice versa.

Humans are dumber than a bag of hammers, regardless of what any particular wrappers in which they are packaged.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 09:04 PM

Quote:
Violence is always a solution. It is what humans do best.

Maybe humans should be considered a failed experiment???
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Violence is always a solution. It is what humans do best.

Maybe humans should be considered a failed experiment???


Well, yes. Once we're extinct.

That is the final proof of concept.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/21/20 09:26 PM

Aliens don't talk to us. There are two possible reasons why.

1. There are no aliens, or at least none advanced enough to say hello from way the [censored] over there, and

2. Who wants to talk to what is essentially a perpetually irritated colony of bullet ants? I mean, we set off nuclear devices in our own atmosphere. Ignoring us/hiding from us are survival imperatives.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
CP has made it clear he does not believe oil is a factor in the Middle Eastern wars.


That is not at all what I have argued. I have argued that we are not currently in Iraq "because of the oil", which is accurate. We are in Iraq because ISIS began to launch and inspire attacks in the West, and so the Obama administration finally decided to re-insert relatively smaller numbers of troops into Iraq and later Syria in order to train, advise, and assist local forces in decimating that particular terror-state with a heavy additional assist from U.S. firepower and financing.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Obama probably would have continued to delay taking serious action against ISIS. But then they started launching attacks in the West.
One speculation. Another would be Pres Obama faced a strong headwind from Republicans regarding US intervention in places other than Iraq (note this may have been for a variety of reasons, almost all of which were simple justifications for the US to be on the border of Iran and opportunities in oil). When Pres Obama gave his infamous (according to Republicans) JV answer about ISIS, the current IC assessment was ISIS was nothing more than a small group in the desert


Respectfully, this is incorrect. Recommend for example you look up the CENTCOM scandal over this.

What happened is that the Administration spent about a year and a half pushing back on the IC trying to tell them that ISIS was a large and growing threat, and excluding senior enterprise leaders who told them the truth on the matter from future meetings.

Quote:
(too bad they didn't have good intel). I suspect Pres Obama would have been more willing than you believe had he had a more accurate assessment of the threat.


I know people who were involved in that effort, and their unanimous (and, in several cases, quite bitter) opinion is that your suspicion would be sadly incorrect. President Obama did not want to go back into Iraq after claiming credit for pulling us out and he did not want to hear about things that may require him to do so.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 01:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
There have been exactly two (2) ISIS attacks in America. One miserable failure that killed exactly no people, and a husband and wife team that killed 14 people in a mass shooting in 2015.

This is worth an endless, non-stop military engagement?


Well, the West is a bit more than just CONUS; we tend to respond to attacks on our Allies as well (and yes, they are there with us in the WoT, even if you don't read about them as much). Is it worth a campaign to take out ISIS to stop attacks in the West?

Well, Obama thought it was - though I would imagine that was more the thing that tipped him over the edge, as it probably piled on top of the genocide, mass-enslavement and rape of others, and general carnage that they were enacting.

Personally, I think he should have acted earlier, just as I think Trump should have acted earlier. Both men chose to put off a hard decision, and let the situation worsen before they did something about it. Obama learned from his mistake - I don't think Trump has (but it's early yet and I may be wrong - we'll see).

Quote:
I can see retribution strikes, but not a "forever war".


Retribution strikes against VEOs tend to have little to no impact on future attacks (though there are specific instances in which a campaign of events can have impact, those conditions don't really apply here). If your goal is "no more attacks in the West" or "No more wiping out local tribes or ethnicities you don't like", pinprick retribution strikes doesn't really take away those capabilities, or - generally - the will to use them.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 01:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

No, war doesn't give a feck about me.


Cool. Ask Messr's Kellog and Briand how well that attitude is gonna work for you.

You don't stop evil by ignoring it.

Quote:
Your fascination with it and feverish endorsement of it is cute though. Do you believe violence is the answer to all problems?


Not at all - it's not the answer to most problems. But there are problems to which it is part of the best answer we have to date.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 01:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: CPWILL
Originally Posted By: Greger
I'm not sure I much give a rat's ass what happens in the Middle East. They're adults and capable of governing themselves, there is no constitutional mandate that suggests we need to force them to do it one way or another.


As the old saying goes, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.


In the Middle East? I hardly think anything is of interest to us aside from oil and Israel, in that order too, by the way.


Both of those are important. From a naked national interest standpoint, so is destroying, defeating, or detering entities which would launch attacks against us or our partners and allies. Similarly (though less so), is destroying defeating or deterring entities which would threaten to destablize key pieces of strategic terrain or our partners and allies (such as, for example, key shipping lanes or sending millions of refugees flooding into Europe).

Internal to the Obama administration, Samantha Powers also led the charge arguing that we had a responsibility to - where we could - intervene to reduce or forestall mass human tragedy, such as what we had seen in Rwanda. I am sympathetic to the argument that, while that is not something we have to do (as it is not a national interest), it is something that in some cases we should do, as it's the right thing to do.

Quote:
If we were actually paying the TRUE cost of our oil, and that means tacking the cost of our military misadventures to the pump instead of through a series of largely unnamed taxes, you'd see support for the ME dip dramatically overnight because that pump price would be about eleven bucks a gallon overnight.


An interesting claim. If you have support work on that, I'd like to see it. Does it take into account the massive explosion in U.S.-based production that would result?

Quote:
SO, war is NOT interested in me,


Fascinating. Have you informed ISIS and al-Qa'ida of this? They will be surprised to hear it.

Quote:
OIL companies are interested in war.


Depends on the oil company I suppose. Those in the war zone, probably not so much. Those producing elsewhere who now can capture a larger share of the market? Maybe?
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 05:21 AM

Quote:
CENTCOM scandal
Recommend you reread.

In 1865 Gen Lee's Armies were decimated and yet continued to offer strong resistance to the northern armies. Likewise when Pres Obama said AQ was decimated he meant the same thing. So when asked 2 years later about a group which took over Fallujah responded with the JV remark. Now the scandal of which you speak was very specific and was about CENTCOM itself. Whistleblowers complained senior level officers at CENTCOM were altering assessments. The rationale believed by the whistleblowers was it was more in alignment with administration views, which may be a reference to the JV comment or some other administration comments.

The problem was the analysts believed (and it turned out to be more accurate) ISIS had a larger following, but the Dir of Intelligence apparently characterized it as not so large. They could both be right, however. It's like raw data before it is standardized. The analysts see an army of 10k and the Dir may see an army of 3k with 7k unwilling conscripts, much as the British saw American forces in the RW. I am not justifying what they did but offering a possible explanation of why they did it. I don't know and what I read did not have an opinion.

Your comment on an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of terrorists is not supported by what I have read regarding the CENTCOM scandal.

Quote:
President Obama did not want to go back into Iraq after claiming credit for pulling us out and he did not want to hear about things that may require him to do so
My comment was regarded only the possibility of engaging ISIS in Syria.

Pres Obama, as did I, concluded major entities in Iraq did not want Americans to remain in Iraq, for several reasons. He of course could have taken the Trumpian view and simply threatened the Iraqis by saying FrakOff we are staying as long as we want to, but why stay when not wanted and especially if the Iranian supported militias would start fighting the Americans. Would fighting on two fronts be the solution any American president wanted? I don't think Pres Obama wanted to stay for that reason as well as the one Pres Bush had already signed a SOFA to leave. They wanted us gone and you don't make friends by pissing in their boots.
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 02:09 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
CENTCOM scandal
Recommend you reread.

In 1865 Gen Lee's Armies were decimated and yet continued to offer strong resistance to the northern armies. Likewise when Pres Obama said AQ was decimated he meant the same thing. So when asked 2 years later about a group which took over Fallujah responded with the JV remark. Now the scandal of which you speak was very specific and was about CENTCOM itself. Whistleblowers complained senior level officers at CENTCOM were altering assessments. The rationale believed by the whistleblowers was it was more in alignment with administration views, which may be a reference to the JV comment or some other administration comments.

The problem was the analysts believed (and it turned out to be more accurate) ISIS had a larger following, but the Dir of Intelligence apparently characterized it as not so large. They could both be right, however. It's like raw data before it is standardized. The analysts see an army of 10k and the Dir may see an army of 3k with 7k unwilling conscripts, much as the British saw American forces in the RW. I am not justifying what they did but offering a possible explanation of why they did it. I don't know and what I read did not have an opinion.

Your comment on an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of terrorists is not supported by what I have read regarding the CENTCOM scandal.

Quote:
President Obama did not want to go back into Iraq after claiming credit for pulling us out and he did not want to hear about things that may require him to do so
My comment was regarded only the possibility of engaging ISIS in Syria.

Pres Obama, as did I, concluded major entities in Iraq did not want Americans to remain in Iraq, for several reasons. He of course could have taken the Trumpian view and simply threatened the Iraqis by saying FrakOff we are staying as long as we want to, but why stay when not wanted and especially if the Iranian supported militias would start fighting the Americans. Would fighting on two fronts be the solution any American president wanted? I don't think Pres Obama wanted to stay for that reason as well as the one Pres Bush had already signed a SOFA to leave. They wanted us gone and you don't make friends by pissing in their boots.



But we did go back.

My son was in Makhmur in 2016.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 05:55 PM

Quote:
But we did go back.
And it demonstrates how complex the issues are.

To write a response which is definitive would require a comprehensive commentary from the genesis to current history. It would require an exposition on then current status and the changing status we have seen in the intervening days. As some have said more bluntly ... nothing is written in stone. Pres Obama having completed the Bush SOFA tried to renegotiate but failed realizing the Iraqis were unwilling to welcome US support. That the facts on the ground changed over a short period of time, Pres Obama became a somewhat unenthusiastic participant in fighting ISIS in Iraq and at the same time try and deal with Syria and the political headwinds at home. Is it any wonder he started his term with dark colored hair and left a white headed old man.

Should we be in the ME? It is a debate worth having
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
But we did go back.
And it demonstrates how complex the issues are.

To write a response which is definitive would require a comprehensive commentary from the genesis to current history. It would require an exposition on then current status and the changing status we have seen in the intervening days. As some have said more bluntly ... nothing is written in stone. Pres Obama having completed the Bush SOFA tried to renegotiate but failed realizing the Iraqis were unwilling to welcome US support. That the facts on the ground changed over a short period of time, Pres Obama became a somewhat unenthusiastic participant in fighting ISIS in Iraq and at the same time try and deal with Syria and the political headwinds at home. Is it any wonder he started his term with dark colored hair and left a white headed old man.

Should we be in the ME? It is a debate worth having


I'd say "no". We belong in North America and our associated territories.
Posted by: jgw

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 06:14 PM

Obama had one really bad habit - he actually believed everybody was good until he didn't. A good example of that one is that he worked, very hard, to get along with the Republicans who had publicly announced that they would fight against ANY legislation that had his name on it. I am also not sure that it wasn't his blackness, rather than his politics that cause this one to happen.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 06:22 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
Obama had one really bad habit - he actually believed everybody was good until he didn't. A good example of that one is that he worked, very hard, to get along with the Republicans who had publicly announced that they would fight against ANY legislation that had his name on it. I am also not sure that it wasn't his blackness, rather than his politics that cause this one to happen.


I am convinced that a lot of it was Joe Biden counsel, probably urging him to try to do the utmost to appease the Republicans.
I think it was really mostly Biden who pressured Obama not to hit back too hard.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 07:22 PM

Quote:
I am convinced that a lot of it was Joe Biden counsel


I'm not convinced that the Obama/Biden friendship/working relationship was anything but a myth. Biden was chosen to get the votes of people who didn't like Obama. Biden is everything in a man that Obama doesn't like.

You don't see Obama endorsing him do ya?
Posted by: Hamish Howl

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 07:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: jgw
Obama had one really bad habit - he actually believed everybody was good until he didn't. A good example of that one is that he worked, very hard, to get along with the Republicans who had publicly announced that they would fight against ANY legislation that had his name on it. I am also not sure that it wasn't his blackness, rather than his politics that cause this one to happen.


I am convinced that a lot of it was Joe Biden counsel, probably urging him to try to do the utmost to appease the Republicans.
I think it was really mostly Biden who pressured Obama not to hit back too hard.


I'm guessing that was Michelle Obama counseling that.

Biden has NO problem giving a bastard a punch in the kidneys, and he has never in his life forgiven a slight.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
CENTCOM scandal
Recommend you reread.


:shrug: I don't need to.

Quote:
In 1865 Gen Lee's Armies were decimated and yet continued to offer strong resistance to the northern armies. Likewise when Pres Obama said AQ was decimated he meant the same thing.


AQI =/= AQI, AQ in the land of two rivers, or the Islamic State. However, the latter group was more than decimated, it was down to a relative fraction of it's strength.

It's worth noting that the fact that ISIS today is stronger in Iraq and Syria than AQI was at that point in Iraq alone, and that this organization has already proven that, without pressure, they can rise from those more reduced origins to what we saw in 2014. So... I'm not exactly sure that's a great argument for the "Let's Just Leave And Hope This Time That Works" argument.

Quote:
So when asked 2 years later about a group which took over Fallujah responded with the JV remark


Which, at the time, was astonishing.

Quote:
Now the scandal of which you speak was very specific and was about CENTCOM itself. Whistleblowers complained senior level officers at CENTCOM were altering assessments. The rationale believed by the whistleblowers was it was more in alignment with administration views, which may be a reference to the JV comment or some other administration comments.


Yes, this was an example of the Administration's approach to the intelligence community when that community attempted to warn it about ISIS, namely:
Originally Posted By: cpwill
What happened is that the Administration spent about a year and a half pushing back on the IC trying to tell them that ISIS was a large and growing threat, and excluding senior enterprise leaders who told them the truth on the matter from future meetings.


The CENTCOM J2 learned the lesson, and didn't want to be kicked out of the room and not invited back for telling the President something the President didn't want to hear.

Quote:
The problem was the analysts believed (and it turned out to be more accurate) ISIS had a larger following, but the Dir of Intelligence apparently characterized it as not so large. They could both be right, however. It's like raw data before it is standardized. The analysts see an army of 10k and the Dir may see an army of 3k with 7k unwilling conscripts, much as the British saw American forces in the RW. I am not justifying what they did but offering a possible explanation of why they did it. I don't know and what I read did not have an opinion.


:shrug: The Administration did not want to admit there was a problem, refused to accept it, and, at one point, literally refused to take information from the military, because the information it was getting wasn't what it wanted. Even our Embassy in Iraq at the time didn't know what our policy was, because the Administration refused to have one. It was a freaking cluster.

Quote:
Your comment on an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of terrorists is not supported by what I have read regarding the CENTCOM scandal.


The CENTCOM scandal was one (and perhaps the most written on) portions of that trend. :lol: I had a friend on the phone with one of the policy offices, trying to explain to them that he could see more ISIS fighters just on the drone feed he was watching live at that very moment in one particular city than they were willing to accept existed throughout the entire organization. They told him he didn't understand what he was seeing, and not to publish his information.

Quote:
President Obama did not want to go back into Iraq after claiming credit for pulling us out and he did not want to hear about things that may require him to do so
My comment was regarded only the possibility of engaging ISIS in Syria.

Pres Obama, as did I, concluded major entities in Iraq did not want Americans to remain in Iraq, for several reasons. He of course could have taken the Trumpian view and simply threatened the Iraqis by saying FrakOff we are staying as long as we want to,[/quote]

That is not the Trumpian view at all. Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East - irresponsibly so, in fact. On a couple of occasions only the united opposition of his own national security team of experts - the General Mattis types - have stopped him. Now, they are trickling out, and we'll see if he continues to be restrained in this area.

Quote:
but why stay when not wanted and especially if the Iranian supported militias would start fighting the Americans. Would fighting on two fronts be the solution any American president wanted? I don't think Pres Obama wanted to stay for that reason as well as the one Pres Bush had already signed a SOFA to leave. They wanted us gone and you don't make friends by pissing in their boots


Cool. The result was still the same. The U.S. tried the "let's just pretend none of this can effect us and so we can ignore it" game, and it turned out, we couldn't and can't.
Posted by: Greger

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 11:32 PM

Quote:
Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East

One thing I like about Trump is that he really hasn't got the balls for war. We need more of that in our leaders...not too much though.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/22/20 11:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East

One thing I like about Trump is that he really hasn't got the balls for war. We need more of that in our leaders...not too much though.


Fair enough that you appreciate it, but, I wish at least people on the left (generally) could recognize it. It's like they've got this formula of Republican=WantsMoreWar in their heads, because Republican=Bad and War=Bad, and they somehow can't accept information that contradicts the easy and trite.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/23/20 12:59 AM

First I do not have military contacts, especially willing to reveal classified briefing materials, so I can not respond to some of what you say.

Quote:
AQI =/= AQI, AQ in the land of two rivers, or the Islamic State. However, the latter group was more than decimated, it was down to a relative fraction of it's strength.

It's worth noting that the fact that ISIS today is stronger in Iraq and Syria than AQI was at that point in Iraq alone, and that this organization has already proven that, without pressure, they can rise from those more reduced origins to what we saw in 2014. So... I'm not exactly sure that's a great argument for the "Let's Just Leave And Hope This Time That Works" argument.
I am not sure what you are trying to say, however I am quite sure no one knew in 2014 what the future status of any of these groups would be. You could speculate, but speculation is what has gotten us in trouble. The Bush administration speculated us into a war.

Not making an argument for L&H (leaving and hoping). Remember Pres Obama was handed the SOFA. He saw as many saw a war costing America dearly in lost lives in every respect and lost treasure. He was of course unenthusiastic about staying or returning. Thus it shouldn't startle anyone that he was reticent in returning after just leaving. There would have been no clear mission. Killing terrorists is not good enough.

You and I (and Pres Obama) with hindsight can better see what could have been done which may have mitigated circumstances. Somewhere between turning the ME into a large sheet of glass and leaving them to their own devices, I suspect there is a reasonable approach for supporting American interests.

Quote:
What happened is that the Administration spent about a year and a half pushing back on the IC trying to tell them that ISIS was a large and growing threat, and excluding senior enterprise leaders who told them the truth on the matter from future meetings.
Again you say this but that is not supported by the whistleblower complaints. They were directed against top IC officials who were altering reports. These officials were not excluded from meetings as it was their reports which were presented.

Large and growing threat. See remarks above on just leaving. This lies in with the JV remark. AQ was international in scope. They were in fact the gold standard in terrorism by which a reasonable person would compare any group. ISIS did not compare to that standard at the time. They were in fact a JV wannabe at the time. They were local players which the Iraqis thought they could handle. That they rapidly morphed into a significant player could not be known at the time. And how did that happen? Well they went into Syria. Who predicted that? I don't even think in hindsight one would have predicted the rise of ISIS in the manner they did it.

Quote:
Even our Embassy in Iraq at the time didn't know what our policy was, because the Administration refused to have one.
Has any administration had a cogent policy for the ME? This was especially hard for the Obama administration as it had to take over what the Bush administration left them. Was it blood for oil? Was it opportunity to get close to Iran (to support MEK)? Whatever the Bush administration left was a mess, but what the Obama administration knew was in 2 years there was an exit and a president unwilling to continue a long war without purpose. After all, it was not about terrorists. It was about WMD's????

Quote:
Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East
Yes and no.

Yes he has no understanding of what our "mission" is, but he does understand dollars and cents. So on the one hand he says he wants out and on the other hand he wants to keep the oil, he will stay in Iraq even if they want him out unless they pay, he has in every respect acted as PM Chamberlain did with appeasement in Syria to the Russians and al-Assad. This chaotic approach to policy is probably a direct consequence of his narcissism. He will act in whatever manner necessary to get adulation and praise even if those actions are contradictory in nature or policy.

But we have wandered from the thread. We have been at war with Iran since 1979. My point is don't be indignant about what Iran does, or present rationalizations for American actions.
Posted by: CPWILL

Re: iranian general qassem soleimani - 01/23/20 05:09 AM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
First I do not have military contacts, especially willing to reveal classified briefing materials, so I can not respond to some of what you say.


None of this is classified - you can look it up. If you want an excellent source, I recommend Long War Journal (boy howdy did they look good and the DoD look bad after the Afghan Papers came out). But fair enough about the lack of military experience.


Quote:
however I am quite sure no one knew in 2014 what the future status of any of these groups would be.


In 2014 it wasn't a matter of the Islamic State's future status, but rather their status at the time. At the time they were a major threat, overrunning territory across eastern Syria and northern Iraq. It was in 2014 that they took Fallujah, Ramadi, Mosul, and threatened Baghdad.

Quote:
Not making an argument for L&H (leaving and hoping). Remember Pres Obama was handed the SOFA. He saw as many saw a war costing America dearly in lost lives in every respect and lost treasure. He was of course unenthusiastic about staying or returning. Thus it shouldn't startle anyone that he was reticent in returning after just leaving. There would have been no clear mission. Killing terrorists is not good enough.


Keeping VEO's suppressed is, I think, absolutely a worthy mission in and of itself. Especially when you look at our presence in 2011 - heck, I think we were losing more people to automobile accidents in-country then than we were to the enemy.

Quote:
You and I (and Pres Obama) with hindsight can better see what could have been done which may have mitigated circumstances. Somewhere between turning the ME into a large sheet of glass and leaving them to their own devices, I suspect there is a reasonable approach for supporting American interests.


well.... yes smile

Quote:
Quote:
What happened is that the Administration spent about a year and a half pushing back on the IC trying to tell them that ISIS was a large and growing threat, and excluding senior enterprise leaders who told them the truth on the matter from future meetings.
Again you say this but that is not supported by the whistleblower complaints. They were directed against top IC officials who were altering reports. These officials were not excluded from meetings as it was their reports which were presented.


That is what I'm pointing out to you - because the people who told the Administration what they didn't want to hear weren't invited back, and so the remainder altered their work accordingly. The President was quite clear that he didn't want to hear things that may suggest his decision in 2012 had gone badly, or that he may have to send troops back into Iraq.

Quote:
Large and growing threat. See remarks above on just leaving. This lies in with the JV remark. AQ was international in scope. They were in fact the gold standard in terrorism by which a reasonable person would compare any group. ISIS did not compare to that standard at the time. They were in fact a JV wannabe at the time.


:shrug: Respectfully, this is flatly incorrect. IN 2014, ISIS was not a JV team, and, in fact, if anything, had surpassed AQ by most measures (more people, more territory, more money, etc.), up to and including holding and governing territory, including territory from two separate nation-states, some of which they had seized by defeating conventional force in battle. In 2012, AQI could have been described as battered and diffused. In 2014, this was nowhere near the case.

Quote:
They were local players which the Iraqis thought they could handle


In 2014 the Iraqi Armed Forces were fleeing at the very approach of ISIS forces, abandoning their weapons and vehicles, and ISIS had seized a goodly portion of their country. Ayatollah Sistani called for every Iraqi male who could pick up a rifle to come protect against ISIS because it was so obvious that the government couldn't handle them. So.... no, because in 2014 the Iraqi's also took us back because they were desperate to A) survive and B) defeat ISIS, which they could not do on their own.

Quote:
That they rapidly morphed into a significant player could not be known at the time.


They were already a significant player and this was known at the time because it was obvious at the time.

Quote:
Quote:
Even our Embassy in Iraq at the time didn't know what our policy was, because the Administration refused to have one.
Has any administration had a cogent policy for the ME?


That is not at all the same and I suspect you know it smile.

Quote:
Quote:
Trump keeps trying to pull us out of the Middle East
Yes and no.

Yes he has no understanding of what our "mission" is, but he does understand dollars and cents. So on the one hand he says he wants out and on the other hand he wants to keep the oil, he will stay in Iraq even if they want him out unless they pay, he has in every respect acted as PM Chamberlain did with appeasement in Syria to the Russians and al-Assad. This chaotic approach to policy is probably a direct consequence of his narcissism. He will act in whatever manner necessary to get adulation and praise even if those actions are contradictory in nature or policy.


Trump has announced withdrawals multiple time and tried to push for withdrawals multiple times only to be restrained by his advisors. He's tried to get us out of Syria, Afghanistan, and, I believe, Iraq. That is his instinctive approach, which is why he keeps returning to it. It is absolutely a chaotic approach to policy, and it is absolutely damaging, but it is his preferred, instinctive, answer.

Quote:
But we have wandered from the thread. We have been at war with Iran since 1979. My point is don't be indignant about what Iran does, or present rationalizations for American actions.


Indignant? Nah - you are correct about 1979. We are long past being surprised by Iran trying to kill Americans.