US-Approved Air Strike Kills Iranian Military Commander Soleimani

[Trunkage]

Nothing. The United States has been the aggressor when it comes to Iran.

You think the US is the aggressor in literally every nation on earth. I'm not sure you've ever found a problem you wouldn't blame on America. Pretty sure you're just salty about communism failing everywhere.

I mean, I personally keep pointing out India being pretty bad. This forum in particular is also very Anti-China. If you hadn't noticed, the Mueller report was about Russia, because all sides of politics recognize that it's got a terrible leadership that is worse than Trump. No one here is in favour of the Ayatollah

And no, not supporting America in this war is not being pro-Irani. Quite a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Iran is very reminiscent of Trump. I'm against both sides

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

People keep bringing up Obama's strikes in Syria.

The difference is that while Obama sought, didn't get, but still proceeded with strikes against Syria [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-seeks-congressional-approval-syria-action/story?id=20127274], there was an actual event that happened.

1.) Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in their civil war during 2013 [https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/obama-syria-strikes-policy/index.html], when already warned in 2012 on Obama's stance on their use of Chemical Weapons.

2.) Obama targeted ISIS figures that were threatening American Interests and actually attacking Ethnic Minorities. Although done without al-Assad's approval.

Now compare that with Trump's move

1.) Intel that there might be some threats against American Interests.

2.) Killed an actual government figure that can and has been used as a figurehead to rally many nations against the US instead of radical insurgents.

I will not mention partisanship in terms of stonewalling Obama and praising Trump. It's there, but that's something that can only be observed yet not proved, as some will say.

I literally can not believe one man is just this universally stupid. His actions have been contradicting America's interest in every way but the corporations. It feels like a saboteur.

 

[Trunkage]

While the rumours that Trump has now a 80 million bounty are likely wrong, Iraq has just decided to expell all US troops and forbid any US military aviation over its territory.

We will see how well they can enforce that. It's seems that Sulemani was meeting up with the Iraqi PM. So they pissed at being used to assist. Also, they know that this war, if it comes, will probably be fought in Iraq.

But I don't know how they are going to dislodge the US

 

[Nedoras]

While the rumours that Trump has now a 80 million bounty are likely wrong, Iraq has just decided to expell all US troops and forbid any US military aviation over its territory.

This isn't completely true. The vote wasn't on just expelling US troops, it was also about ending Iraq's membership in the international coalition to fight ISIS. Basically they want to stop aiding the US led coalition. There were a few other demands as well such as investigating US bombings, but this vote doesn't really mean much. They didn't vote to actually do these things, they voted on asking it to be done. The parliament passed the buck, and it's nonbinding. Odds are, none of this is going to actually happen. There's a lot of misinformation regarding this situation in Western sources at the moment.

For example if anyone has heard that Iran is completely abandoning the nuclear deal, that isn't true either.

https://apnews.com/e043255bd33ab318f71d1947716a5b94

They're abandoning the limits of the deal, but not the deal itself. They also claim that they're still willing to negotiate with European partners in the deal, and that they're not seeking to make a nuclear weapon. They're still upholding that bit. However this could all fall apart depending on what happens, so who the hell knows at this point.

EDIT:

I'd also like to point out that US Customs and Border Protection has been ordered to detail any Iranian that enters the country that looks "suspicious" regardless of their citizenship status. Just last night dozens of US citizens were detained for several hours and questioned for no damn reason. Some police departments have also announced that they'll be "keeping an eye out and on alert for terrorist activity". So yeah, the American police state is pretending that it's 2002 again.

 

[Agema]

And no, not supporting America in this war is not being pro-Irani. Quite a lot of the rhetoric coming out of Iran is very reminiscent of Trump. I'm against both sides

Yep.

Iran is run by a shitty regime and no mistake. But there are equally shitty regimes (cough Saudi Arabia cough) not declared enemy and fucked with all the time. Whilst the USA has geopolitical reasons to oppose Iran (chiefly that the USA is more allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and Iran's involvement with terrorism), I think partly it's just hanging on to an outdated perception of hostility going back to the 1979 embassy siege. Dredging Iran up as a convenient "enemy" for the ease of cheap points in US domestic politics. Europe, by comparison, isn't interested in making up axes of evil and other trite concepts, so it'd rather just try to get along with minimal friction. And besides, the terrorists fucking with Europe are most certainly not backed by Iran, as they're Sunni fanatics.

For Trump in particular, I think it's that Trump is uncritically aligning the USA with Israel and Saudi Arabia's desires. As with many things, I don't think he's interested in long-term US national policy and advice from government departments. His worldview is based around personal whim and personal connections: his friends and business interests and experiences are with Israel and Saudi, or people strongly connected to Israel and Saudi, and so that's what he listens to. If it goes to shit... that's all shit someone else is going to suffer from, not him in his gilded Trump Tower.

 

[Kwak]

daily mail
- Abdul Mahdi suggested that the Iranian military leader was in Baghdad as part of Iraqi-mediated negotiations with Iran?s main regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

He said that Soleimani was going to meet him on the same day that he was killed.

?He came to deliver me a message from Iran, responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran,? Abdul Mahdi told The Washington Post.

washington post article, which isn't very enlightening, as to who he was saying it to and when and where...
- Abdul Mahdi suggested Sunday that Iran and the Saudis had been engaged in dialogue to tamp down their feud, with Iraq playing the role of mediator. Abdul Mahdi said he had been expecting to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed. ?He came to deliver me a message from Iran, responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran,? the prime minister said, without providing details.

 

[Trunkage]

daily mail
- Abdul Mahdi suggested that the Iranian military leader was in Baghdad as part of Iraqi-mediated negotiations with Iran?s main regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

He said that Soleimani was going to meet him on the same day that he was killed.

?He came to deliver me a message from Iran, responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran,? Abdul Mahdi told The Washington Post.

washington post article, which isn't very enlightening, as to who he was saying it to and when and where...
- Abdul Mahdi suggested Sunday that Iran and the Saudis had been engaged in dialogue to tamp down their feud, with Iraq playing the role of mediator. Abdul Mahdi said he had been expecting to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed. ?He came to deliver me a message from Iran, responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran,? the prime minister said, without providing details.

Negotiations are for quitters

 

[Agema]

daily mail
- Abdul Mahdi suggested that the Iranian military leader was in Baghdad as part of Iraqi-mediated negotiations with Iran?s main regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

If true, that would make the USA assassinating him a truly astounding clusterfuck.

However, I wouldn't necessarily put much weight on it without further support. Adil Abdul Mahdi is, I think, aligned towards Iran and this could be equivalently bullshit PR to Pompeo's bluster about imminent attacks, playing for public and international opinion.

 

[Seanchaidh]

People keep bringing up Obama's strikes in Syria.

The difference is that while Obama sought, didn't get, but still proceeded with strikes against Syria [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-seeks-congressional-approval-syria-action/story?id=20127274], there was an actual event that happened.

1.) Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in their civil war during 2013 [https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/obama-syria-strikes-policy/index.html], when already warned in 2012 on Obama's stance on their use of Chemical Weapons.

Allegedly. But yes, there was at least a rationale that made some sense; they at least bothered to cook up an excuse even if it may have been a frame up. Of course, if we look at how US media is covering this assassination-- and how liberal politicians are falling over themselves to condemn its target-- we might question whether any rationale for a US strike hasn't been disingenuous bullshit.

Nothing. The United States has been the aggressor when it comes to Iran.

You think the US is the aggressor in literally every nation on earth. I'm not sure you've ever found a problem you wouldn't blame on America. Pretty sure you're just salty about communism failing everywhere.

Do I?

... Is it?

I only think so if I can point to a reason that it's the aggressor. You've already been told what that consists of in the case of Iran, and it's a slam dunk case. I don't think the USA is an aggressor towards every nation on Earth. Some candidates for counterexample come to mind, of course, mostly white countries-- though increasingly it looks like the United States (at the behest of its pharmaceutical industry) is taking a predatory role toward even the UK. Anyway, as much as saying so might offend the elite foreign policy consensus, maybe a slightly more specific claim is true: all ongoing conflicts that the United States is engaged in are born from the aggression and/or imperialism of the United States and its proxies. That this could be true of the most powerful global empire in history should not be very surprising, and so your appeal to your own incredulity falls flat as a pancake.

 

[Pseudonym]

Nothing. The United States has been the aggressor when it comes to Iran.

You think the US is the aggressor in literally every nation on earth. I'm not sure you've ever found a problem you wouldn't blame on America. Pretty sure you're just salty about communism failing everywhere.

That wouldn't be that crazy, now would it. The United States has the most powerful military force in the world; nobody else comes remotely close. Nobody has a reason to mess with them and it could well be tempting for them to throw their weight around to their advantage (meaning to the advantage of the people in charge, not to the advantage of the American population at large). Leaders of countries like Iran, Venezuela and North Korea have good reason not to antagonize the US for no reason, whereas the leaders of the US will be quite safe even if a war happens.

Empirically we also have a pattern here. Within my lifetime the US has declared war on Iraq for no reason, Afghanistan for a bad reason, aided wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria that aren't working out so well for the local population, and have bombed a range of countries they aren't officially at war with. In the meantime Iran has declared war on zero countries whilst aiding wars in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, still a strict subset of the wars the US is involved in.

In the case of Iran right now it's pretty clear cut. There was a deal to deescalate tensions, and it was broken by the US on no grounds at all. All of the conflict between the US and Iran seems to be happening in countries bordering Iran, but on the other side of the world from the US. That should tell you something. US sanctions are getting Iranians killed and the US just assassinated their top general and doesn't even have the decency to deny it, and the worst escalation by the Iranians I can think of are proxy wars in countries on their own doorstep and shooting down an unmanned aircraft that was maybe in their airspace. I don't follow this thing nearly as closely as Seanchaidt seems to do, but there are about a million red flags here to clue you in that the US is the aggressor, much more so than Iran.

 

[Silvanus]

Allegedly. But yes, there was at least a rationale that made some sense; they at least bothered to cook up an excuse even if it may have been a frame up.

A "frame up", with the OPCW, UNHRC, Joint Security Council, and numerous independent investigations and dozens of other countries all in on it. With a half dozen chemical analyses all faked, and the Syrian Gov's (known and documented) stockpile of chemical weapons sitting there unused.

Its ludicrous conspiracy theory shit like this that makes people dismissive towards genuine condemnation of US war crimes.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Allegedly. But yes, there was at least a rationale that made some sense; they at least bothered to cook up an excuse even if it may have been a frame up.

A "frame up", with the OPCW, UNHRC, Joint Security Council, and numerous independent investigations and dozens of other countries all in on it. With a half dozen chemical analyses all faked, and the Syrian Gov's (known and documented) stockpile of chemical weapons sitting there unused.

Its ludicrous conspiracy theory shit like this that makes people dismissive towards genuine condemnation of US war crimes.

Just the OPCW [https://original.antiwar.com/dave_decamp/2019/12/29/wikileaks-releases-even-more-opcw-douma-documents/], really. When a bunch of different organizations all get their info from one singular place, it doesn't add much (if any) credibility based on the number of people saying it.

 

[tstorm823]

Do I?

Yes.

I know a bunch of people responded to me with that comment, but I really did mean you specifically. You, specifically, blame every struggle or conflict on the planet on the US. That is what you do on this forum. Religiously.

Empirically we also have a pattern here. Within my lifetime the US has declared war on Iraq for no reason, Afghanistan for a bad reason, aided wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria that aren't working out so well for the local population, and have bombed a range of countries they aren't officially at war with. In the meantime Iran has declared war on zero countries whilst aiding wars in Yemen, Iraq and Syria, still a strict subset of the wars the US is involved in.

Well this is just being pedantic. When their supreme leader chants "Death to America", and then their military resources kill Americans, it's more evidence of dishonesty than peacefulness to say they haven't declared war.

 

[Silvanus]

Just the OPCW [https://original.antiwar.com/dave_decamp/2019/12/29/wikileaks-releases-even-more-opcw-douma-documents/], really. When a bunch of different organizations all get their info from one singular place, it doesn't add much (if any) credibility based on the number of people saying it.

Firstly, you're well aware that that was one of many reports, referring to one of many attacks. Theres extensive involvement in investigations and reports from the other institutions I listed. The conspiracy you're alleging would have to be absolutely colossal and international in scope.

Secondly, Bast above that link is some shoddy stuff. Leaps of speculation in one paragraph, "mights" and "could bes", which are then treated as fact in the following paragraphs. At one point it refers to an email as essential corroborating evidence for a core point without any fucking detail on who its from. It has the gall to cite the far-right provocateur Peter Hitchens.

 

[Silvanus]

Well this is just being pedantic. When their supreme leader chants "Death to America", and then their military resources kill Americans, it's more evidence of dishonesty than peacefulness to say they haven't declared war.

Out of interest, what do you call it when US military resources kill civilians and non-combatants of countries the US is not formally at war with?

Because, you know, that happens all the goddamn time.

 

[CaitSeith]

Trump sees himself as the Judge Dreed. That's a bad thing.

 

[tstorm823]

Out of interest, what do you call it when US military resources kill civilians and non-combatants of countries the US is not formally at war with?

Because, you know, that happens all the goddamn time.

I call it war, and so does everyone else. Iran does the same thing for worse reasons and got excused in the post above.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Do I?

Yes.

I know a bunch of people responded to me with that comment, but I really did mean you specifically. You, specifically, blame every struggle or conflict on the planet on the US. That is what you do on this forum. Religiously.

Except I don't.

I correctly blame the United States for the conflicts which are principally its doing. Yes, it's a lot of them. No, it's not all of them.

Perhaps more importantly, what you're doing here is not an argument against what I'm saying. It's a complaint that I'm saying it, which is entirely different.

 

[tstorm823]

Except I don't.

I correctly blame the United States for the conflicts which are principally its doing. Yes, it's a lot of them. No, it's not all of them.

Perhaps more importantly, what you're doing here is not an argument against what I'm saying. It's a complaint that I'm saying it, which is entirely different.

I don't need to argue. A self-aware person would hear this complaint and go "crap, I really am that one-note", and figure out yourself where you've gone wrong.

 

[Trunkage]

Out of interest, what do you call it when US military resources kill civilians and non-combatants of countries the US is not formally at war with?

Because, you know, that happens all the goddamn time.

I call it war, and so does everyone else. Iran does the same thing for worse reasons and got excused in the post above.

Which specific post excused Iran?