Boston Leaf
New member
as an American I am terrified... This will not end well. The president does what he wants when he wants doesnt listen to anyone and does everything for his ego.. I despise the guy with every bone in my body
Idiocracy
- Thread starter Highlander
- Start date
OrangeBlack
New member
Whether you like President Trump or not, this was a good tactical move. This Iranian general has the blood of many Americans on his hands, & the nickel & dime stuff was already starting to occur more often. Many on both sides of the aisle have come out & said that this guy won't be missed. The MSM assumes this is going to escalate into a full blown war. I doubt that Iran wants to consider that possibility...especially with this unpredictable president.
OrangeBlack
New member
Nik, my defense of the decision is this Iranian general's body of work, & the fact that he needed to be stopped. Lets give this a few months & see how it plays out.
bustaheims
Active member
Regardless of whether or not Soleimani needed to be taken off the board (and, for the record, I believe he did), the way it happened was still reckless, done without following protocol . . . oh, and, almost certainly an illegal assassination carried out on foreign soil without alerting the local government, which makes it a war crime.
There were better ways to go about this, like how they took down Bin Laden.
There were better ways to go about this, like how they took down Bin Laden.
OrangeBlack said:
I?m wondering what leads you to believe this is a good tactical move. And to achieve what goal?
To protect US assets in the Middle East? But he just ordered that everyone leave Iraq, Pakistan and somewhere else. And said attacks could still happen.
To piss off our allies? Congrats. Mission accomplished. Our most dedicated war-time allies like Britain are pissed.
You?ve mentioned that the nickel & dime stuff was occurring more frequently. Well, Trump abandoned the nuclear deal and has been antogonizing Iran and it is reacting to his policy.
I understand that this will seem like a great move if all you watch is Fox News and it will seem like an even better move the more conflict occurs because war makes for great TV.
But here?s an alternate take from someone who is partisan, but at least doesn?t have a history of lying all the time:
https://nyti.ms/2ujyq9S
OrangeBlack said:
Yes, he?s a bad guy. That?s the same reason for the Iraq war (apparently, though it?s impossible to say what the real reason was) which is universally deemed a failure by all sides. So we need more than just ?he?s a bad guy? to understand whether this is a strategic benefit to the US.
Frank E
Active member
bustaheims said:
"Taken off the board"!!!
There are limited opportunities to do this, and I think they took their shot when they had a good chance with limited other casualties. It was pretty clean, from what I've seen.
I think I need a little more context until I say this was or wasn't a good move. Wasn't Pakistan pretty upset about the Obama administration going into Pakistan to kill UBL?
hockeyfan1
New member
princedpw said:
War benefits the few at the expense of the many. War has always been good for the U.S. economy, at least that?s been the rationale for decades, as it keeps the factories humming, etc.
Many believe Trump wants the glory too and by this action (of ordering Soleimani?s assasination), he looks and gives the impression to his supporters of being more presidential as well as looking ?heroic? pandering to this great American nationalism. Trump?s way is to pay lip service to advice and do things that benefit his own interest, for better or for worse, at the expense of constitutional structure or congressional/ administrative consultation.
Guilt Trip
Active member
What's going to happen?Zee said:
They had shots before and they didn't take them because previous administrations would rather have gotten the Iran nuclear deal done than not. This was done in retaliation to an earlier storming of the US embassy in Iraq, not a chance encounter with a groundhog popping his head above ground.Frank E said:
So here we are, with more conflict than before and a regime now bent on arming themselves. What a shock! What the end game here? They aren't overthrowing Iran's theocracy, and anyone they coaxed into believing that maybe following the west is the way to go isn't believing that anymore.
All for one guy. This isn't a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda that would really feel the impact of their leader getting killed. If a Canadian general was killed do you think there'd be an immediate change in direction? Probably not - there are redundancies for a reason in the military.
You kind of wonder if they'll push even harder against the west with their new general who has a point to prove.
Hobbes
New member
Soleimani hasn't been hiding. He's been in plain sight for at least the last half dozen years and could have been taken out with minimal casualties pretty much any day of the week. And if taking him out was OBL level necessary, the number of casualties really wouldn't have been all that much of a concern. They would happily have hit a commuter train full of civilians if they'd known with 100% certainty that OBL was on board.
So far nobody in the Pentagon has indicated that there was any unusual or imminent threat that necessitated assassinating Soleimani right this instant. Nobody has attempted to spin it as "we just got word of something and had to act before he carried it out," and anyone who thinks that one of the largest armies in the world would have its plans particularly disrupted by one person's death doesn't know anything at all about how such operations are planned within a military structure/hierarchy. Assassinating Ike a week or two before the Normandy landings wouldn't have changed the operation in the slightest.
It has been pretty obvious that Trump has wanted an ace in the hole plan for his re-election and knows that a president-at-war stands an extremely high chance of winning a 2nd term even if they have extremely low approval ratings. The USA has a history of it, and as you can see from my earlier post, he's directly considered the strategy when he accused Obama of using it 8-9 years ago. He's talked about it on other occasions as well. His moves over the last 3 years set the stage for it perfectly. He pulled out of the nuclear oversight deal without any real justification (none of the other international participants felt that Iran was violating the terms and up until 3 days ago when Iran said that they now consider the treaty null and void, all evidence seems to suggest that they adhered to it). He has constantly used belligerent rhetoric when referring to them. He has disengaged/disentangled most of the US forces in the region from what they were doing in Iran, in spite of it being against the advice of just about any military or political advisor and has left the US' allies in precarious positions. He's been setting the stage for this for 3 years now.
Why assassinate Soleimani right now? Two reasons: it stands a very good chance of kicking off escalations in violence that he can parlay into a limited war with Iran in time to give him the necessary boost at the ballot box that will push enough "patriotic" undecided voters to his side; and it's also perfect timing to distract from the impeachment fiasco/proceedings in the Senate. Cable news (and the American public) have the attention span of a fruit fly so he's now able to manipulate the news cycle for the next little while pretty much at will. Nobody will focus on the sham that's about to be perpetrated by McConnel, et al, when they can be distracted with pretty video of cruise missiles being fired from destroyers, or jets taking off from assorted carriers.
It sickens me to think how many lives are likely to be lost over the coming months simply because this piece of garbage wants to win re-election no matter what the cost.
So far nobody in the Pentagon has indicated that there was any unusual or imminent threat that necessitated assassinating Soleimani right this instant. Nobody has attempted to spin it as "we just got word of something and had to act before he carried it out," and anyone who thinks that one of the largest armies in the world would have its plans particularly disrupted by one person's death doesn't know anything at all about how such operations are planned within a military structure/hierarchy. Assassinating Ike a week or two before the Normandy landings wouldn't have changed the operation in the slightest.
It has been pretty obvious that Trump has wanted an ace in the hole plan for his re-election and knows that a president-at-war stands an extremely high chance of winning a 2nd term even if they have extremely low approval ratings. The USA has a history of it, and as you can see from my earlier post, he's directly considered the strategy when he accused Obama of using it 8-9 years ago. He's talked about it on other occasions as well. His moves over the last 3 years set the stage for it perfectly. He pulled out of the nuclear oversight deal without any real justification (none of the other international participants felt that Iran was violating the terms and up until 3 days ago when Iran said that they now consider the treaty null and void, all evidence seems to suggest that they adhered to it). He has constantly used belligerent rhetoric when referring to them. He has disengaged/disentangled most of the US forces in the region from what they were doing in Iran, in spite of it being against the advice of just about any military or political advisor and has left the US' allies in precarious positions. He's been setting the stage for this for 3 years now.
Why assassinate Soleimani right now? Two reasons: it stands a very good chance of kicking off escalations in violence that he can parlay into a limited war with Iran in time to give him the necessary boost at the ballot box that will push enough "patriotic" undecided voters to his side; and it's also perfect timing to distract from the impeachment fiasco/proceedings in the Senate. Cable news (and the American public) have the attention span of a fruit fly so he's now able to manipulate the news cycle for the next little while pretty much at will. Nobody will focus on the sham that's about to be perpetrated by McConnel, et al, when they can be distracted with pretty video of cruise missiles being fired from destroyers, or jets taking off from assorted carriers.
It sickens me to think how many lives are likely to be lost over the coming months simply because this piece of garbage wants to win re-election no matter what the cost.
Boston Leaf
New member
Very good assessment Hobbes... I couldn't agree more..