your move should strengthen you and weaken the enemy (at least relatively). And I don't think killing Soleimani achieved that for the Americans. Though the damage on either side has thankfully been limited. — Baden

There is also the notion that while it may be right that he should die, it was not right for us to kill him, or at the time and in the way that we did (thank you Aristotle, almost verbatim). A sense of justice is nearly universal, and injustice can weld a community tightly together and to the single purpose of achieving justice. The strategic and tactical implications alone enough to justify some formal procedure. There's a reason that wars are declared.

If someone assassinated Bush Jr for his part in the Iraq war, would you consider that justice? What about stormin' Norman? Does he deserve to die? And can't we do away with Trump for his betrayal of the Kurds? Or is your rule that only American lives matter (because you can be sure that most Iranians have exactly the same view only in the inverse). For me as a neutral military leaders are in the same broad category⁠—people whose job is to kill in the interests of their country. Is there some reason I should think differently? You have to take a step back from your position on one side or the other to make a convincing moral argument. Otherwise, we're just talking about strategy, which is fine, but let's make that explicit. — Baden

Come on Baden, no my position is not that only American lives matter.

I'm waiting for the moral argument that justifies killing Soleimani rather than Bush or Trump that goes beyond they're American and he's not. I don't think you have one. Prove me wrong.

Strategically, things are simpler, your move should strengthen you and weaken the enemy (at least relatively). And I don't think killing Soleimani achieved that for the Americans. — Baden

You may be right.

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better. — Baden

Continuing with a war with Iran IS a stupid move. Nobody thinks otherwise.

So weak dick that he blew up the Ayatollahs right-hand man. — NOS4A2

Well, if Iraq goes really through with sending US forces and other foreign troops away AND the tit for tat stops really here, it's a clear victory for Iran. Iran has already been given the reason to go full forward with the nuclear development, so...the idea that one general would really be so important (especially when he's now a great martyr) for a large army is um...really a coherent idea? :chin:

The real reason is of course that Trump supporters are actually more logical than their Prez. If they didn't like the 2003 Iraqi invasion at least in hindsight (and Trump slaughtered the Bush candidate with that), have been fed a healthy distrust of the establishment and the military-industrial complex (and deep states etc), they simply won't like going to war with a salami tactic of a tit for tat. Trump will start to erode his own base if he goes to war.

But needles to say that Trump apologists like NOS4A2 will never admit anything like that. Likely they will champion how smart their hero is by NOW by showing restraint.

* * *

Btw the Iranian missiles seem to be quite accurate and seem really to have been intended to hit hangars (of course, there aren't all of the hits in the picture). Naturally the bases had early warning and the personnel evacuated to bunkers. And do notice that there's absolutely no comment about even trying to counter the attacks with ABM systems. It is actually similar to Trump's attack on a Syrian air base: the US did say to the Russians that they were going to attack the air base before hand.

At least five structures were damaged in the attack on the base in Anbar province, which apparently was precise enough to hit individual buildings. "Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," says David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.

Iran's attack targeted at least two military bases in Iraq. The extent of the damage to the second base, in Irbil, was unclear.

Shortly afterward, President Trump said in an optimistic tweet: "All is well!

See Satellite Photos Reveal Extent Of Damage From Iranian Strike On Air Base In Iraq

Yeah. All is well. Perhaps Americans will forget this in a couple of months. People in the region will perhaps not.

Remember when you shared this video in the hopes that it would capture his stupidity?



It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted. He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani. He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle. Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.

The only thing he was wrong about was Obama wanted to start a war with Iran to win the election, which are not unlike the anti-Trump conspiracy theories regarding Trump.

Seems you didn't get the sarcasm... the part that he's now with the re-election issue and obviously thinking that killing an Iranian general would be good for his bid. And his description of Obama fits himself, that's the point: he has absolutely no ability to negotiate, he's weak and he's ineffective.

And what deal on Earth are you talking about?

Tell me just when has Trump negotiated with the Iranians. What he has done is to break up a deal which had many countries aboard and basically this. It's just empty like the so-called "breakthroughs" Trump has had with North Korea. So he now knows personally the leader of a country that the US is basically at war. Otherwise...there's not much to show.

Although Trump says his friendship with Kim has produced a more peaceful North Korea, the reality, especially of late, has been quite different. Since May, North Korea has tested more missiles than it has in any other year in its history, except possibly 2016, according to the analyst Ankit Panda. It never stopped producing fissile material for nuclear bombs. Think tanks are pumping out reports on establishing “maximum pressure 2.0” against Pyongyang. The name-calling is back: Kim is once more “Rocket Man,” Trump a senile “dotard.” Satellites are spotting renewed activity at North Korean nuclear sites, while Kim has resumed testing at a rocket-launch site he had promised to dismantle in 2018. U.S. officials are yet again warning of military options. North Korean officials are proclaiming the days of denuclearization negotiations over.

And likely this will happen with Iran. Trump will make this a huge victory and hence anything saying otherwise will simply not be said...or at least not handled in media focus. Earlier it was said that countries that had the ability to put satellites into orbit had the potential to create ICBMs. Iran has put satellites up into space since 2005. That's fifteen years ago. Hence you shouldn't be surprised that the discourse will go like with North Korea. With North Korea first it was said extensively that they didn't make a nuclear detonation, but used massive amounts of TNT. Then their satellite launch failed. And in fact all their missile firings were a failure. Now it's "let's change the subject": we have peaceful North Korea!

Quite so, it's populism on steroids again, showmanship designed to deflect from the impeachment scandal and win an election. Trump doesn't know how to do anything else, in reality he's The King of Comedy.

Unfortunately by his self obsessed behaviour, he is losing the US presence in the Middle East, leaving a vacuum to be filled by Russia, or China. I expect Russia will make the first move, as they have already been showing their presence in the Middle East. This is a big prize for them, because they lost the East European states to the EU. Ever since they have been looking to expand into the countries around the periphery of Europe, what better prize is there than Iran?

I expect in about ten years we will have a proxy war stand off between a US backed Israel and a Russian backed Iran, both sides bristling with nuclear weapons.

All thanks to The King of Comedy Donald Trump, ( read Rupert Pupkin).

I expect Russia will make the first move, as they have already been showing their presence in the Middle East. This is a big prize for them, because they lost the East European states to the EU. — Punshhh

Why is this a big prize to the Russians?

I don't know, but I expect they will want to become an influential friend to a crescent of countries across the Middle East. They talk of Syria as a client state, Turkey has been cooperating with Russia and falling out with the US. As the US strangles Iran with sanctions etc and a promise for a much tougher nuclear deal than the Obama deal, they will look for friends to bolster their economy and prestige. A perfect moment for Russia to step forward. They might even lend Iran a nuclear bomb. This would then enable Iran to begin to dominate the region with a nuclear power behind them. Giving Russia a dominant presence in the region and forcing any US, or European presence remaining out.

Looks like a win win to me and a lose lose for NATO.

Giving the Russia a dominant presence in the region and forcing any US, or European presence remaining out. — Punshhh

Where’s the benefit for them in this?

Where’s the benefit for them in this?

To re-establish their role on the world stage as a super power. They probably feel diminished now that a number of Eastern European states have now joined the EU, who were once under their control. You know, geopolitical stuff.

. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. — NOS4A2

That appears to be what he wants. But his diplomacy is terrible. The Iranian say it's that of a terrorist. Should we expect them to negotiate with terrorists? We go to war with terrorists.

Where’s the benefit for them in this? — Brett

Putin wants that Russia is a Great Power. A global player. It's the Russian version of "Make the Country Great Again!" This message sells, you know.

He has already fought back the 'biggest tragedy in history', the collapse of the Soviet Union, by annexing Crimea ...and annexing parts of Georgia back to Russia. Those were popular moves with many Russians.

After all, if you have stolen so much money that you are basically the wealthiest man in the World, you do want to have the ability to retire (or die in office) without nobody putting you behind bars. If you are popular among the people, that helps.

Influence over and acces to oil and gas.

See for instance: the geopolitics of oil and gas pipelines

It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. — NOS4A2

I'm sure you're right that Trump doesn't want war - he's extremely isolationist. Instead of a "better nuclear deal", we have NO nuclear deal: he pushed Iran into abandoning the JCPOA entirely. The chances of negotiating with them at all is low, because when Trump abandoned the JCPOA, he showed them the US is faithless in their negotiations.

Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted.

And Trump's presence in the White House hasn't slowed this a bit. Incidentally, the experts you disdain predicted that toppling Saddam would lead to this. I don't think it was preventable by either Obama or Trump, but Trump's behavior with the Kurds and with Iran puts him on the poorest of footings to negotiate anything. Trump has made us even more unwelcome in Iraq. I do not expect him to withdraw our troops, but it does mean the troops will be surrounded by growing hostility towards them.

He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani.

Honestly, I hope his saber rattling works, but I expect that sooner or later, our enemies may realize that his threats are empty.

He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle.

Verbal support for protestors doesn't get you much. The real problem is that Trump's action has kindled the flames of Iranian nationalism, shifting the focus from internal Iranian leadership to the hated US.

Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.

I agree that other possibilities should be exhausted. It's unfortunate that Trump's big misstep of withdrawing from the JPCOA got us to this point. I predict Iran will not respond with open warfare, but will instead step up their support for terrorist activities.

The bottom line is that Trump has put us in a worse position with respect to Iran and Iraq than when he took office. That seems indisputable.

He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. It never barred Iranian aggression in the Middle East and had the “sunset provisions”, which Pompeo contends will lead to a frightening nuclear arms race in the Middle East when those provisions run out,

Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. So since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions.



If they don’t negotiate then sanctions will not be lifted and they will descend further into economic and societal collapse. I suspect his is what Pompeo wants given the demands of the administration’s new strategy in Iran.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up.

He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. — NOS4A2

And today what is better?

Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. — NOS4A2

And it's a logical choice. Trying to compete with the USAF & USN by a conventional air force is a hopeless attempt for Iran, hence an alternative is to create ballistic missile artillery deterrent. Especially when the US is dependent on those bases (which btw were now attacked). Hence Iran hasn't modified much it's antiquated air force. Yet surprisingly has kept the F-14 Tomcats flying (which meanst that unfortunately there are no flying specimens of this great fighter in the US).

o since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions. — NOS4A2

And how has this worked? Seriously, what negations are you talking about.

You see, just like with Russia, sanctions don't so much effect especially the armed forces. On the contrary, they are an effective incentive to create and strengthen domestic arms production as Iran has done. And the economy? Can go up and down, but the biggest buyers of Iranian oil don't care a rats ass about Trump's sanctions. You think China and India will care about Trump's bitching? Or is Trump going to impose sanction on them or even start to blockade their oil tankers from entering Iranian ports? Not going to happen. And a lot of trade will just be circumvented through third countries.



All that the sanctions do is to keep oil prices higher. Because if Iranian oil would be open for the West to buy, it simply would lower the prices (as it actually did). That of course works fine for oil companies and other oil producers. And oil doesn't matter so much for the US at least, thanks to shale deposits.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in sanctions and in overtly hostile relations with it's former close ally USA since it's birth. For over 40 years now. So I guess they are quite adapted to that, just like Israel is adapted to the fact that it doesn't have much if any trade with it's neighbors.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up. — NOS4A2

There was lots of debate on the JCPOA at the time, and there were smart people on both sides of it. I accept that it wasn't a perfect deal, and perhaps a better one could have been obtained - but absolutely no one can say for certain. On the other hand, once it was in place, it was idiotic to withdraw from it - and that's exactly what Trump did, over the objections of the military and his own Secretary of State. We will never know what would have happened had the US stayed in it, but we will know what will happen following Trump's actions. I don't know what the future will bring, and I hope it will be bright. However, the situation at the present does not look good, and Trump owns it.

He has already fought back the 'biggest tragedy in history', the collapse of the Soviet Union, by annexing Crimea ...and annexing parts of Georgia back to Russia. Those were popular moves with many Russians

Yes and we already know that Putin has been characterising Europe and the US as aggressors against Russia in the Russian media. This fires up his base as it portrays him as a strong man look after their interests. He also played a smart move by going to help Assad in Syria, giving him more kudos and giving him his entry back onto the world stage. Iran is ripe for the picking now that Trump is going to strangle Iran.

In my country the situation is totally different. And they don't believe that the political environment is fixed. — ssu

Hopefully different as in better.

I'm not so sure that the US political environment is fixed, per se; but I am sure that there are far too many individuals with far too much power, and far too many enormous swathes of people with little to none. Those with too much power include both unelected and foreign individuals(good riddance Scalia). Those with too little include everyone else with the right to vote, and use their own free speech in the process.

It's not so much a "puppet government" either, but that description as historically used to describe governments that claimed to be democratic but were actually not due to hand picked puppet "yes" men that were not elected as the result of a free and fair election by the citizens of that country.

No, it's not quite like that...

But very goddamned close.

I'm not so sure that the US political environment is fixed, — creativesoul

I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, time will tell, but I see Trump as breaking, or shaking up, what was a very comfortable system for so many. His personality is abrasive and he’s uncompromising, but is this what’s needed to break up a system we may not even have a name for that operates under the guise of democratic process. If things are bad for people in general in the US surely that’s the result of entrenched corruption in the system that goes back many years. To me the fact that these people, the elites, are so angry and out of control over Trump suggests that they really feel threatened. And why wouldn’t they, there’s so much to lose?

All that the sanctions do is to keep oil prices higher. — ssu

Actually sanctions can have the reverse effect. If the sanctioned country can establish a black market, the price might be lower and the oil could flood the world market as an uncontrolled source, lowering prices. This may have actually happened when Iraq was sanctioned; notice that Bush was very anxious to get rid of Saddam, and oil prices soared afterwards. The problem is that the black market puts money into the wrong hands while the average person of the sanctioned country suffers.

It looks like evidence is pointing to Iran shooting down a Ukrainian aircraft filled with Iranian, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians. Not a good look, especially after the annihilation of Soleimani, the deaths of funeral-goers, and the bombing of Iraq. Iran is incompetent.

"These people"???

Who? I've no idea what group of people you're claiming are worried about Trump because they have so much to lose over Trump's suggestions...

I think it's quite wrong to think about Trump in slogans. They've proven to be shallow rhetoric. They don't really say anything, and they certainly do nothing to help uproot the long standing problems(some of which provided the circumstances for Trump's base).

Slogans such as "shake things up", "drain the swamp" and others, including "make America great again" are without specific enough meaning to be anything other than rhetoric. Everyone has their own idea of what each slogan takes... or 'means', if you like. In this... the slogans are far reaching, thus the rhetoric finds use. They are powerful political tools on the US stage. Use these sayings in an attempt to run for president in a country long since filled with people who do not trust that their government is acting on their behalf; use these sayings, and talk in the same rhetorical terms that one very popular major media outlets uses and talks in; use these sayings and you'll get plenty of different people's attention.



Trump's ego maniacal behaviours worry many who currently have, or seek to obtain, the power to get certain legislation passed; especially those people who have some vested financial interest in an area that Trump is currently influencing. However, they are not at all worried about him doing anything at all to hurt their bottom line as far as economic policy proposals are concerned.

They are not the least bit worried about that.

Trump is an ugly distraction from the one fundamental underlying problem in American government that must be corrected as soon as possible. The underlying problem of monetary corruption and the direct overwhelmingly powerful influence that certain (unelected)private parties have usurped from the American people. It remains fully intact throughout this particular distraction.

You're correct in that the underlying issues are longstanding problems. They have grown into a perfectly manicured path, as a result of constant attendance from a plurality of different administrations throughout the last fifty to sixty years; Democrat and Republican alike. In fact, many of Trump's actions have bolstered the foothold of certain private entities as well as individuals, and weakened all past attempts to provide a better country with more equal opportunity for all of it's citizens.

It is the number one job of the American government to take action which results in consequences that increase the over-all well-being of American citizens; that is exactly what acting on behalf of their best interest looks like... when it's done successfully. Unnecessary harm sometimes happens as a result of the best intentions. In such cases, those actions need to be reversed. To recognize and continue is to continue harming American people unnecessarily so. It is to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

Surely we all agree that any time the government enacts legislation that results in unnecessarily harming most of it's citizens for the benefit of the very few(some of whom are not it's citizens)...

Surely, we can all agree that that is a past mistake still in need of correction.

Is it possible to have real conversation about Trump these days? Maybe not.

Slogans such as "shake things up", "drain the swamp" and others, including "make America great again" are without specific enough meaning to be anything other than rhetoric. — creativesoul

Taking one of my comments and throwing it in with slogans of unspecific meaning in an attempt to make my comment look meaningless is so typical. You could hardly deny that Trump has shaken things up. Look at the posts on this forum.

I've no idea what group of people you're claiming are worried about Trump because they have so much to lose over Trump's suggestions... — creativesoul

Of course you know who I mean, you’re just playing games. You may not agree with who I mean by “those people” but you know what I mean. And you know what they have to lose; just an election for starters.

I'm just saying that a more nuanced understanding is needed to glean knowledge upon the bigger picture...

What led to Trump...

What will remain during and after Trump...

I really do not know who you are saying is worried about losing a lot of their power and comfort as a result of Trump's suggestions.

All slogans are unspecific. They are widely applicable as a direct result of being so. Many different people can relate to them in their own unique way. You began the discussion using one of Trump's many slogans. I simply commented upon the power of them, as well as the shallow nature of understanding that the slogan provides.

That wasn't about you, personally. It was about the shallowness of Trump's slogans, and their popularity as shown by their continued use. Trump was certainly not the first to say make America great again....

Not everything in American government needs shaken up...

So... talking about shaking things up needs preceded by true descriptions of real problems. Otherwise, we shake up the wrong stuff as well as what needs it. That need not happen.

It is though...

Unfortunately, many of the best parts of American government have been and/or are currently being systematically dismantled.



So...

Trump's behaviour can be accurately characterized as "shaking things up"...

Whoop tee doo.

Not all shake ups are good ones.

but I am sure that there are far too many individuals with far too much power, and far too many enormous swathes of people with little to none. — creativesoul

I think the problem is that corporations and the extremely rich can influence far too much the policies and simply write the best laws for themselves personally. Everything is nearly fine as long as the economy chugs along. The Trump vote and also those favouring Bernie (and AOC) aren't actually so happy with this, even if their opinions otherwise are totally different.

In the US system the elite doesn't think they would have any special role for the ordinary people. It simply is taken as granted that the system works, (as what could be bad with the system given down from the Founding Fathers!) hence one can mind one's own business and simply push one's own agenda. Any collective agenda isn't needed. Now I don't have much against libertarianism, but in this case the assumption that as everyone is responsible for oneself, the rich don't need to anything for the United States is a bit problematic. Then the only thing is just to fight government bureaucracy and the closet-socialists lurking in the democratic party.

Here's the difference when I think of my countries rich people: with just over five million people, people do feel a responsibility towards their little country, if they are rich. This also means that the conservatives and the traditional right and center have always favored policies that sound very socialist for the American. Hence the welfare state. I would argue that this is more like Otto von Bismarck implementing social programs: a way to counter the left and avoid social upheaval. Vast hordes of poor people that lose their faith in the society can bring destruction, hence better to resolve the problems.

I don’t know if I’m right or wrong, time will tell, but I see Trump as breaking, or shaking up, what was a very comfortable system for so many. — Brett

That's the belief Trump supporters desperately hang on to. That Trump was good friends with the Clintons is simpy sidelined, or that he has more billionaires in his administration and the tax cuts etc, a list that seems perpetually long. Personally I'm not convinced.

If things are bad for people in general in the US surely that’s the result of entrenched corruption in the system that goes back many years. To me the fact that these people, the elites, are so angry and out of control over Trump suggests that they really feel threatened. And why wouldn’t they, there’s so much to lose? — Brett

This is the thing: Trump has to be doing something good as the elite is angry. This is the assumption.

Yet just who is angry about Trump? Are those rich corrupt billionaires really angry about Trump? Is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson angry about Trump? Just to give ONE example from many but appropriate for this thead, Adelson put into Trump's election bid 82 million and Adelson's agenda was a) ending the Iran deal, b) moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and he personally c) suggested neocon John Bolton to be the security advisor. Trump gave everything to him, even if it didn't work well with Bolton. But I'm sure he likes what Trump has done now with Iran.

Rich rule the US. So what has changed, Brett?


Wife gets a lovely medal too!


Sure, George Soros might not like Trump, but he's the rich billionaire influencer of the Democrats. That's just how the system works. Billionaires, select your party and rule.