100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (5 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one -🤞 .

    After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

    The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.


     
    The Iraqi parliament have passed a resolution calling for the expulsion of US troops. It’s not a binding Iraqi law but it demonstrates how difficult this situation is. Iraq is a sovereign nation - not just a battleground with Iran.

     
    The exact reason for the where and why it was done now will never be known to us. I am sure timing (do it now or loose the chance) had something to do with it. But no matter why or how it was done the Democrats will always disagree with it if Trump was involved in getting it done.


    The “why” was supposedly because they posed an imminent threat to diplomats and allies in Syria and Lebanon. However, when pushed by congress and our allies for substantiation on this the administration has been unable to produce evidence justifying that assertion. And what evidence they have given requires enormous leaps of logic to justify. And what leaks have come out establish that this was more likely Trump simply picking haphazardly from a menu of options for retaliation first presented to him well before the timeline inferred so far. And anyone that had a pulse during the lead up to the Iraq war(or even a pulse after and had the capacity to learn about it) should not be blindly trusting any administration that is escalating tensions in the Middle East.

    Also, Soleimani is not Bin Laden, he is essentially the Iranian equivalent of our Sec-De. He isn’t crawling through the shadows. Assassinating him is not some once in a lifetime opportunity that everyone strategically agreed upon should happen but just couldn’t. As many former officials from the last two administrations have already stated, this is something we could do at almost any time if we so desired. But just because we have the capacity to assassinate someone does not mean carrying it out is a strategically wise idea.

    That said, is this the only way defenders/supporters have to defend Trump anymore? Vaguely alluding to their troubling blind trust and/or simply attacking the other guys in various capacities as roundabout justification? Because that seems to be the bulk of what is going on recently.

    How about instead of defending Trump by attacking Democrats and the left with mostly straw men or red herrings his defenders simply make the case? Because so far it has been telling that most comments by Trump defenders aren’t really able to do so. Even the few that have slightly dipped their toes seem to disappear the moment holes are brought to their attention from what has so far been only a few relatively flimsy rationales offered.
     

    Whelp.......
     
    Why is the Secretary of State commenting on where our military will attack? This administration is a dumpster fire pushing us into a major war. I bet now that Bolton has his Iran war, he won't say anything about the Ukraine affair.
     
    How is it that the Iraq government is run by the Iranians?

    I wish the US would leave Iraq, but I would want everything that the US improved to be undone. It would not be long before Iraq will be Iran.
     
    Last edited:
    We may have just united the entire Middle East, folks. 🤦‍♀️
     
    I want to make sure I have this right, You are perfectly ok with the US turning over Citizens or even political rivals over to other Countries?

    Meh, why not? Look where we are now in our ever-closer-to-a-banana Republic... and it's not like we haven't been sacrificing soldiers to our Oil Gods and Ideology Gods since the 1950's.
     
    How is it that the Iraq government is run by the Iranians?

    Do you think that the Iraqis might be a little po’d that the US would carry out a drone strike at their airport without their knowledge? And there were Iraqis who were killed as well as the Iranian general.

    If some country killed a foreign prime minister while he was at a US airport, also killing five or six American citizens, do you think we would be happy about that?
     
    Ok, so an Iranian general bebops around Iraq like he owns the place and the Iraqis do nothing.
    Iranian militiamen attack our embassy in Baghdad and the Iraqis don't stop it.
    Can we stand back a minute and reflect on what an utter failure the Iraq War turned out to be?
    Can we at last admit that every American, every Iraqi who died in that war died for nothing.
    Trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives and we accomplished exactly dick.
    And Trump wants to do it all again.

    Jesus H Christ
    Given what devildog/superchuck just posted it becomes even more farcical that we are likely getting kicked out and will by extension concede that much more influence to Iran in the region(or worse refuse to go and get viewed once again as an occupying force, further galvanizing Iraq against us). A true reminder for why Trump’s escalatory behavior meant to appease armchair hawks who think being crass, using the right buzzwords, and abandoning soft power is what makes a country strong is so stupid and dangerous.

    Though I would just want to add that the relationship Iraq has with Soleimani is a little more complicated. We focus on his evil, and are fair to do so, but like a lot in the Middle East it is much more complex than simply good and bad. Soleimani and his various militias are also one of the primary reasons ISIS was pushed out of Iraq. They also provide a large amount of financial aide and human resources to a country that is still struggling to modernize and defend itself. Granted both serve their own self-interests, and many are strategically designed to root their influence in Iraq, but then again that’s how statecraft works. But that just also goes to your point for why our adventure here is such a joke. All of that and in the end we combined ignorance with trillions of dollars to help make Iraq a client state for Iran.
     
    How is it that the Iraq government is run by the Iranians?

    I wish the US would leave Iraq, but I would want everything that the US improved to be undone. It would not be long before Iraq will be Iran.
    You could write and there have likely been entire books on this.

    But it is a combination of American ineptitude and inevitability.
     
    OK, I'm confused.

    Did the Iraqi government vote to expel US troops, or did they vote to work on removing all foreign troops?

    Seems CNN is confused too. The headline and the photo caption say two different things.



    1578242780948.png


     
    OK, I'm confused.

    Did the Iraqi government vote to expel US troops, or did they vote to work on removing all foreign troops?

    Seems CNN is confused too. The headline and the photo caption say two different things.



    1578242780948.png


    I think the vote was for all foreign troops, but there are not many non-US troops in country. Poking around the internet to find exact numbers is difficult, but there appears to be 400ish British troops and 69 Canadians doing training missions with no combat role at all. Compared to the 5200 Americans currently in country, you can guess who they want out the most.
     
    I think the vote was for all foreign troops, but there are not many non-US troops in country. Poking around the internet to find exact numbers is difficult, but there appears to be 400ish British troops and 69 Canadians doing training missions with no combat role at all. Compared to the 5200 Americans currently in country, you can guess who they want out the most.

    I think you're right.

    "The Iraqi government has an obligation to end the presence of all foreign forces on Iraqi soil and prevent it from using Iraqi lands, waters, and airspace or any other reason," Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mohammed al-Halboosi said in an address to lawmakers before the vote.

     
    The administration says there was a plot which spelled imminent danger that necessitated the strike. Most people are waiting for them to provide evidence of some sort. It was a bold move that the US hasn’t done since World War II, to assassinate this man. Nobody who is sane want the US to go to war with Iraq. It’s proper to be skeptical about this move.
    Sorry, this may be a bit of a thread jack but my interest was piqued by this. Just curious as to what bold move in WWII are you referring to? I'm reading it as the US openly assassinated someone and I can't think of anything. I'm legit excited to do some research later.
     
    The problem with escalating is that you need to have a clear objective of what you're trying to achieve and how far you're willing to go. I think Trump has been pretty consistent with not getting into a ground war in the Middle East, a stance I mostly support. That is the Iranian's assumption, they probably believe that while actions they take will provoke things like air strikes and so on, they probably believe that the US will not invade Iran unless they attack US territorial sites.

    So, Iran is more likely going to have stronger political will in this conflict -- after all they can't actually leave Iran. They have no where else to go. The US has little political will for another long and expensive occupation, so Iran's calculus that the US won't invade is probably correct.

    So, what does the strike on Soleimani give us? He was a major figure in planning attacks against Americans and American interests. It's not a bad thing to let Iranian leaders know that they can personally face US consequence instead of just their citizens. However, we also pissed off the Iraqis and it looks like we could lose access to Iraqi bases, and possibly airspace. That would make any future attacks against Iran a bit more difficult, and gives Iran more access to influence Iraq.

    If it plays out that way - Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, and we lose Iraqi bases, then Trump's strategy to escalate the situation with Iran would be a clear failure. If Iran eventually provides more access to UN inspectors than they had under the previous deal, and Iranian influence in Iraq is diminished, then it would be a success.
     
    Sorry, this may be a bit of a thread jack but my interest was piqued by this. Just curious as to what bold move in WWII are you referring to? I'm reading it as the US openly assassinated someone and I can't think of anything. I'm legit excited to do some research later.
    We assassinated Admiral Yamamoto.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom