Fuck yeeeeah!

Your contribution has been a few rhetorical questions, a maths brain fart, and a poor attempt at sarcasm. Analysis, no. — Baden

All you had to do was ask why I kept mentioning Shiites. How was I supposed to know that you're clueless?

Oh wait.

You don't give the impression of someone with anything much to contribute @frank. You'll just have to own that until you actually say something other than the word "Shiite".

And sorry if I hurt your feelings. Let's be friends again and show the US and Iran a good example. :love:

Just to clarify my argument by the way. My claim here is that the American action is likely to lead to more violence and death in the region, including on the American side with a small but significant risk of a full-scale war, and for that reason was undesirable. My claim is not that the general didn't deserve to be killed or wasn't involved in sponsoring attacks on American forces etc.

You don't give the impression of someone with anything much to contribute frank. You'll just have to own that until you actually say something other than the word "Shiite". — Baden

What I'm realizing is that you don't understand what's been happening in the middle east since the invasion of Iraq. You don't understand where ISIS came from, and therefore you don't really understand the Syria disaster. I mean, I could explain to you that Iran incites sectarian violence and that's the main reason the Middle East hasn't been able to recover from the American invasion of Iraq, but I don't think that's going to compute for you.

Eh, I don't care if you understand it. Good night. :)

Why?

The hardliners certainly hate our guts. Sometimes people just hate your guts.

Which is why he helped you fight the Taliban?

yes, we will occasionally share interests with groups that we aren't normally friendly with. would it mean kim jung il likes us if he dislikes isis?

No, it doesn't. You're not thinking. Try the analogy again. Try to think about not fucking yourself up just to get to fuck the other guy up. Or bite the bullet and admit you don't really care about how many people get killed, you care about being made to look bad by a country you consider inferior.

Bro, from a game theory perspective it makes sense to push the envelope if your opponent isn't responding. and that's exactly what happened; suleiman was brazen, he didn't even attempt to hide where he was going and he'd take selfies because he considered himself untouchable. you need to look at history and understand that sometimes the cost of inaction is worse than the cost of action. obviously, in this case, we'll just never know.

What are these, specifically, and why do they require you to get into an armed conflict with each other as opposed to finding some kind of mutually less destructive accommodation?

you keep implying that we can have peace and be best friends with iran but you never really come up with anything concrete... you just say de-escalate, but this term is pretty vague. so far you haven't suggested any actual alternative. the two nations won't even speak to each other directly. the iran govenrment as of 2018 refuses to negotiate with the US.

You've concluded I know nothing about the Middle East because I didn't ask you what you meant about something? You're an odd one. And I'm pretty sure everyone involved in the conversation understands that Iran has been inciting sectarian violence there. You'll need to come up with more than that if you want to contribute something to the discussion. And leave the silly face-saving ad-homs at home. They're not remotely credible.

And I'm pretty sure everyone involved in the conversation understands that Iran has been inciting sectarian violence there. — Baden

Cool. So you understand why Sulimani had been a high value target for years, why the recent uptick in Iranian backed violence directed at Americans was testing the waters to see what the US would allow, and why the the assassination was the answer to that question.

You've got the whole picture?

And leave the silly face-saving ad-homs at home. They're not remotely credible. — Baden

If you say so. I'll keep what I really think of you to myself.

Trump is dead? — Baden

No, and nor is Obama, who trespassed into Pakistan to assassinate OBL in what the Dems have now clarified as a violation of international law. Fortunately there are no international courts to bring justice to either, although had there been, Suleimani. (and OBL) would have been convicted long ago of terrorism, thus eliminating the need for his elimination.

What are these, specifically, and why do they require you to get into an armed conflict with each other as opposed to finding some kind of mutually less destructive accommodation? — Baden

I think the strategy has been one of increasing sanctions, open mutual hostility, and a lack of diplomacy. Iranian hostilities go back from my memory to the Carter administration. I guess the real question is why the attack now? I don't really know what changed, but I don't know what less destructive accommodation there is other than letting it be what it is and tolerating it ianother 4 decades.

To be honest, my initial reaction to this event was not another ‘oh what has Trump done now’. It seemed to me the kind of action that any US President might take (not to justify it on those grounds.) My honest reaction was, well if the militariat recommended and carried it out, then that is where the responsibility lies. I wouldn’t expect Trump to have any real grasp of strategy or to really mull over consequences; it seems to me that his foreign policy has been a disaster from the get go. But in terms of Presidential iniquity, it doesn’t rate very highly against his general malfeasance.

No one wants a war, but given these facts:

-The general was behind hundreds of american deaths in iraq.
-He was behind the recent embassy attack.
-Was very likely to be planning more attacks, and never even really attempted to hide his involvement. — BitconnectCarlos

Was he behind hundreds of american deaths in Iraq or was this the bs that Cheney came up with that has since been debunked? Was he planning more attacks? What evidence have you seen - read: not what evidence can you come up with now - that led you to this conclusion? Evidence you can now find is also useful, but I think it is important for us to notice if we are making decisions because someone asserted something and never justified that assertion.

Imagine if Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia killed Kissinger for crimes they considered he committed during the Vietnam war. They did this while Kissinger was visiting France and while he was an advisor in some way to a current president.

And the idea with all these policies, such as one breaking international law, should be to protect US interests and citizens.

This act will very likely do just the opposite, except for certain interests: the arms and intelligence industries for example.

America and war, whether it's from Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan it seems fair to identify a pattern. The pattern is that the American public are told more lies than truths, the white house gets into wars and stays into them in a completely undemocratic way and political motivations play a bigger role than actual geopolitics.

In the Vietnam war, many different leaders who knew the war was basically unwinnable continued to either escalate, start or continue the war. In Iraq, the entire reason for going to war was a lie and in Afghanistan, generals have recently admitted that they have no idea what they're even doing there.

The US has a history of political assassinations, supporting rogue groups and there's also an almost equally long history of how all of these things ended for the worst. In the middle east, in Asia and in South America.

America has such a bad history with the wars they've started, with the covert operations and assassinations they've carried out. If the US goes to war with Iran, we might find out 20-30 years later the answer why but until then, likely nothing is what it seems. I have no sympathy for Iran's regime, however, I also have no faith in America's ability to bring about a positive resolution through war and if this is the start of one then so far the start is pretty bad.

What evidence have you seen - read: not what evidence can you come up with now - that led you to this conclusion? Evidence you can now find is also useful, but I think it is important for us to notice if we are making decisions because someone asserted something and never justified that assertion.

It's all over the mainstream media and both sides of the aisle- democrats and republicans seem to agree on the basic facts here. Soleimani's complicity seems to be universally accepted.

I actually work in intelligence. I could go into work tomorrow and get the inside scoop, but it's not like I could ever actually deliver any physical evidence to the general public (or even really talk about what I heard.) Additionally, for all I know, the reports have been doctored. At some point you just sort of need to throw in with it. I think the connection between Iran and known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (which have been behind American deaths) as well as sectarian groups in Syria has been pretty well established.

Imagine if Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia killed Kissinger for crimes they considered he committed during the Vietnam war. They did this while Kissinger was visiting France and while he was an advisor in some way to a current president.

You wouldn't do this at the negotiating table, but out in the field I think Kissinger would have been a legitimate target for the vietnamese. I think a better comparison would be Westmoreland, who was actually a general - but yeah, absolutely a legitimate target for the Vietnamese. generals are absolutely legitimate military targets.

This act will very likely do just the opposite, except for certain interests: the arms and intelligence industries for example.

Yes, tensions could very well be inflamed. However, this comes after a long string of transgressions/attacks from Iran who previously believed themselves untouchable. With this strike that veil of impunity has been shattered. I'll make it very clear that I don't want war with Iran. Yes, we've raised the stakes but the iranians were really becoming quite bold thinking that we couldn't touch them. hopefully this will help prevent further bold escalations from iran because they know they are no longer untouchable. of course, the jury is still out on this one and the results will unfold over years.

I am not an American, but the population always disapproves government decisions that were not properly communicated. No matter who's right or wrong, surprising the voter is never a good policy. Nothing should transpire without popular consent or at least discussion and feedback of some kind. Obviously, I don't mean the particular strike, but the need for escalation, if and when necessary. Another problem here is that Trump doesn't always stick to his word, and while he may have spoken about the possibility of military actions many times, his remarks would not have been considered credible at the time.

Funnily enough, I read recently that Trump was losing support among Evangelicals and the religious in general and was concerned to shore that up. Maybe he cussed too much or something. Anyway, I like the angle. Something adroitly fucked up about it. — Baden

I think that finally many of them start to be tired of being called hypocrites (by supporting Trump and saying that they are also for Christian values/virtues). I think another reason is that the shadow of Hillary is fading away. You simply cannot now start defending Trump by saying how worse Hillary would have been. 2016 is ancient history.

They'll find Trump again if the Democratic candidate can be portrayed to be an overt atheist hell bent on attack people of Christian faith or something.

Iraqi Parliament votes to expel U.S. troops from the country, after airstrike that killed top Iranian military leader

WSJ

So there you have it!

Americans are kicked out by the government they used so much effort and money to create and install. Hooray for democracy. And with 2,3 trillion dollars used.

Teheran will be all smiles.

BRAVO TRUMP! :cheer: :ok:

North Korea can avoid war if they don't want one.

Iran, maybe not.

The US would not dream of assassinating any North Korean general or other high official. By the way, if Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi really had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have been in a position to avoid war. They were not, simply because they were too gullible.

It is Kim Jong-un who has got it completely right. Never hesitate to press the button, and make sure that the other side clearly understands that you will not hesitate for one second to effectively do it.

The only way to avoid war now, is for Iran to urgently acquire a nuclear arsenal along with the ballistic missiles to strike anywhere on the globe. Hence, for Iran, it is a race against time now. By the way, Iran should obviously have done that a long time ago already.

Another possible solution for Iran is to place itself under the Russian nuclear umbrella. If anybody strikes at Iran, the Russian Federation will immediately and without hesitation strike back. I think that this is to some extent already the case anyway.

I have another explanation

The current generation is not marrying, first because divorce is now so common, and second because its income is lower than the prior generation. So there is a surfeit of testosterone going around and alot of people who are useless to the economy because, without having children, they arent buying enough stuff.

So the ruler's solution when there is a surfeit of useless people is to send them overseas to get killed off, while saying it values human life, it actually does everything it can to attribute war deaths to other factors, resulting in absurd statements I have heard like 'only 7 people were killed by the war' in the first persian gulf thing (stated deaths are only for combatants during declared military engagements, not including deaths from so called 'friendly fire,' which are frequently much higher than all deaths caused by the enemy).

The USA is looking for someone else to play the killing off game to the extent it is now being deliberately aggravating, assassinating Iranian generals when there had been many prior opportunities untaken.

and second because its income is lower than the prior generation. — ernestm

It has most likely nothing to do with absolute level of income. If it did, then marriage should be almost non-existent in very poor countries, while that is clearly not the case.

The drop in marriage rate is probably more related to the shrinking difference in income between spouses. Marriage generally does not take place, if it does not allow the lower-earning spouse to gain access to the resources of a substantially higher-earning spouse.

Unconditional "romantic love" has always been just a Hollywood fairy tale. Marriage is first and foremost an economic arrangement.

Too much equality seems to lead to extinction! ;-)

t has most likely nothing to do with absolute level of income. If it did, then marriage should be almost non-existent in very poor countries, while that is clearly not the case. — alcontali

That's true, but people in the USA have this in-built sense of entitlement that has long been fulfilled, leading them it to expect more. But capitalist exploitation of resources is hitting a wall as every possible avenue of exploitation is used up, so the progressive improvement over the last 150 years is breaking down. People in poor nations also have a sense of entitlement but don't really expect more.

People in poor nations also have a sense of entitlement but don't really expect more. — ernestm

Poor nations are generally no longer relatively as poor as they used to be.

For example, in PPP, income per capita per year in the UK is $46,000 while in Thailand it is $20,000, slightly less than half. Thailand is not that poor in relative terms, compared to the UK. They've clearly got the basics covered too, and then some.

In my opinion, this gap will further shrink in the next few decades, to the point that it will no longer be relevant for most countries.

I wouldnt consider Thailand a particularly poor nation, although as costs there are the much same as in the USA, and income is as you say is half as much, the standard of living is rather atrocious. However it has very little to do with the OP, lol.

The only way to avoid war now, is for Iran to urgently acquire a nuclear arsenal along with the ballistic missiles to strike anywhere on the globe. Hence, for Iran, it is a race against time now. By the way, Iran should obviously have done that a long time ago already. — alcontali

I agree with this totally. This is the stupidity of Trump as the Obama agreement was indeed a better option. But the bad thing was that it was done by Obama, so for Trump it had to be bad. This is the crazyness of Trump. When it comes to Iran, he's been a hawk right from the start. It's a thing many Trump supporters haven't noticed in their daydreams about Donald.

Another possible solution for Iran is to place itself under the Russian nuclear umbrella. If anybody strikes at Iran, the Russian Federation will immediately and without hesitation strike back. I think that this is to some extent already the case anyway. — alcontali

I think this is unlikely.

There's no reason for Russia to do this. The only country they would be willing to defend with nukes likely is Belarus, their closest ally. You see, Trump has a problem with Iran: he can surely bomb it, all those 52 places he has promised to bomb, but then what?

Invading and occupying Iran is out of the question. Too many people, a very socially cohesive people (unlike Iraq), very difficult terrain, all things that make it a nightmare to go in. Hence the thing Trump can do is to bomb the country and go after Iranian proxies or so-called Iranian proxies...and then declare himself a victor. Yet bombing Iran is as useful as bombing North Vietnam: it will strengthen their resolve and make the Iranian people back up their regime. The success is basically that the present nuclear program facilities can be destroyed. Hooray.

If Trump bombs Persepolis or even just sticks to military and oil production targets, Putin can actually be happy about it. Iran surely will need his help after the bombing has ended and the US is mired in a new war, which won't make him friends in Europe. After all, Putins objectives are:

a) break up NATO
b) break up EU
c) end the Transatlantic relationship between US and Europe
d) make Russia a Great Power again

How does the US attacking Iran hinder those objectives? It doesn't. Hopefully it can further them.

This is the stupidity of Trump as the Obama agreement was indeed a better option. — ssu

Obama seemed to have been better at juggling with Israel's pressure on the USA "to do something" about Iran. Israel is very selfish and will drag the USA without hesitation into adventures that are not in its best interest. Obama knew how to manage that. Well, he clearly did. By the way, I am otherwise no fan of Mr. fake Nobel prize winner Obama.

The assassination of Soleimani was certainly not the worst thing that Trump has done in this context. It is the insulting speech that he gave in West Palm Beach afterwards that is the worst. His allegations were so incredibly insulting that even CNN now demands that he must "prove it". He went seriously over the top there, and there was absolutely no need for that. On the contrary, it is not even an appropriate way to start a war, if that is what he actually wanted to achieve by rubbing salt into the wound.

Stupid of Trump to threaten terrorist attacks on cultural sites. Even the Pentagon told him to fuck off. If he's trying to unite the world, including his own armed forces against him, he's succeeding.

Obama seemed to have been better at juggling with Israel's pressure on the USA "to do something" about Iran. Israel is very selfish and will drag the USA without hesitation into adventures that are not in its best interest. — alcontali

It is the most astonishing thing about US foreign policy: that the sole Superpower goes is so much influenced and controlled by a small country, which is the closest ally by only defends it's own interests. It's simply crazy if you ask me. But when you have AIPAC and especially the Evangelicals with their insane beliefs, that's what you have. It's just about getting the votes and a twisted Overton window on what can be even said about the Mid-East policy in general.

Stupid of Trump to threaten terrorist attacks on cultural sites. Even the Pentagon told him to fuck off. If he's trying to unite the world, including his own armed forces against him, he's succeeding. — Baden

I think he's milking the "outrage" factor with this. He wants to be seen as this "no-nonse" tough guy and for him it works if democrats and lefties get "outraged" by his rhetoric. That's the method. Everything is just about the next elections.

Risky to make bluffs that have your own guys contradicting you, especially when those guys are the ones you'll need to rely on for military action. Might play well to a certain crowd at home, but it's likely to embolden your enemies. We'll see how it plays out, but the US is looking more dazed and confused than tough at the moment.

Risky to make bluffs that have your own guys contradicting you, especially when those guys are the ones you'll need to rely on for military action. — Baden

This is the fear everybody has about Trump. Nobody believes that Trump would even consider preparing some coherent plan or form an alliance. What he basically is now doing is waiting for the countermove from Iran. In my view for Iran the best response would be to spend time and work on those nukes as much as they can and try to get Iraq really to go with it's Parliaments decision of sending the US troops home. If Trump really responds with sanctions on Iraq, it's a win for Iran.

Surrounded with yesmen and neocons, Trump can make absolutely bat-shit dumb decisions. That Mattis and all the "adults" have left the Trump administration is the problem now. It really has been downhill after Mattis has gone: first the debacle with Erdogan and the Kurds, now this.

the US is looking more dazed and confused than tough at the moment. — Baden

You're not alone with this. I'm really starting to question if the country has anymore an effective foreign policy. Other commentators have made similar remarks especially about the State Department. It is simply a mess.

In my view for Iran the best response would be to spend time and work on those nukes as much as they can and try to get Iraq really to go with it's Parliaments decision of sending the US troops home. If Trump really responds with sanctions on Iraq, it's a win for Iran. — ssu

Now that Iran has casually shot missiles at American bases in Iraq, and with Iraq already demanding that these bases be gone, I wonder what the next improvised response is supposed to be? The assassination of another Soleimani?

Iraq is now militia-land, just like Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia.

That is what was achieved by removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq, Qaddafi from Libya, and trying to remove Bashar from Syria.

My gut feeling says that we can expect an assault by Shia militia on American bases in Iraq and Syria. These militia have been watching them closely for years now anyway ...