100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

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.

 

[wardorican]

That's significant

Follow this thread.

 

[wardorican]

Definitely sends a message. Don't fork with our embassy.

Just hope we're prepared for the response. It won't be all out war. But expect massive cyber attacks, perhaps some terrorist attacks, potentially US service members ambushed.

as Yashar states in the tweet thread above, this is like killing a VP of a foreign country.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Of course, there's a tweet for everything...

 

[Intensesaint]

Of course, there's a tweet for everything...

Man, the marching orders were pretty clean on this one.. I have already see this all over the place.

Difference here, this strike was necessary. Show those forks that we are not going to tolerate them attacking our embassy.

Save the pearl clutching for things that hurt people's feelings.

This had to be dealt with and swiftly.

 

[Intensesaint]

First we get this...

Then we get this...

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Man, the marching orders were pretty clean on this one.. I have already see this all over the place.

Difference here, this strike was necessary. Show those forks that we are not going to tolerate them attacking our embassy.

Save the pearl clutching for things that hurt people's feelings.

This had to be dealt with and swiftly.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Man, the marching orders were pretty clean on this one.. I have already see this all over the place.

Difference here, this strike was necessary. Show those forks that we are not going to tolerate them attacking our embassy.

Save the pearl clutching for things that hurt people's feelings.

This had to be dealt with and swiftly.

So let me get this straight, an extrajudicial assassination was necessary because Iran was protesting at our embassy and firing rockets, which was the result of escalatory actions the American government took after we broke a multilateral agreement on false pretenses.

By this logic Irans’s next retaliation, which will come, will justify any of our counter-retaliations. Rinse and repeat.

...Why not just come out in favor of invasion now?

Or are you naively thinking that assassinating a renown figure in Iran that will force the regime’s hand to ramp up rhetoric and retaliation while our assassination simultaneously galvanizes a once fractured Iranian populace to unify around a shared sense of anger and external threat brought by us, will actually somehow be the secret sauce to breaking the cycle and breaking the back of Iran to capitulate their entire self autonomy to US control in the way the Trump administration has demanded of Iran in order to allow them to revisit diplomatic talks and frameworks?

If not something like that, it would appear this moral rationalization process in the face of a cycle of escalatory retaliation has no endgame...And that is how you generate the justification for another Iraq.

 

[brandon]

Impeachment armor.

 

[Maxp]

I think Trump bungled this operation. We have a long history of Executive assassinations, but they were always carried out to maintain plausible deniability for the President. Trump just came out and said he ordered the assassination. We really need to roll back the power of the executive in this "War on Terror." I know the Israelis are celebrating in the streets today.

 

[MT15]

It’s hard to say what sort of move this is at this point. I do know Trump was relentless about alleging that Obama would start a war to help him get re-elected, it wasn’t just one tweet, it was something he harped on.

So we know that Trump has considered this as an option to help his re-election. We also know he has a lot of difficulty separating his own goals from his official acts.

We know that the attack on the US embassy was a reaction to a US action. It’s hard for me to say this was entirely provoked by Iran at this point in time. I don’t see it.

The US says they had evidence of a imminent plot to harm US citizens. We shall see, I suppose. How history judges this action will depend a great deal on how Trump navigates the fall out. If he draws us into a costly war, he will be entering “W” category. And justifiably so.

 

[brandon]

Dow set to tumble more than 300 points on US-Iran clash
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

I don’t think this is going to go well for the president.

 

[Dadsdream]

Nobody's asking what an Iranian general was doing in Iraq, at the Baghdad airport, so I guess the answer to that is obvious.
The Russians are being highly critical of the attack, so that's one positive.
Of all the Democratic candidates, at least Joe Biden tempered his criticism, prefacing his remarks by saying no American would morn this man's death, that's another positive.

 

[Soundwave]

First we get this...

Then we get this...

Saw the most recent (bottom) tweet and thought it was a good one. Then I saw the earlier tweet from a few days ago (top one) and wondered how someone can talk out of both sides of their arse.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Let's go pour out another trillion dollars in the desert to rescue our big impeached boy.

 

[RobF]

Saw the most recent (bottom) tweet and thought it was a good one. Then I saw the earlier tweet from a few days ago (top one) and wondered how someone can talk out of both sides of their arse.

What do you mean? Those tweets are consistent with each other.

That is, unless someone thinks the only reasonable action in the event of no-one fearing or listening to you is to carry out an assassination without congressional approval potentially triggering a war. But who's daft enough to think that?

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I agree with Rob.

 

[Soundwave]

What do you mean? Those tweets are consistent with each other.

That is, unless someone thinks the only reasonable action in the event of no-one fearing or listening to you is to carry out an assassination without congressional approval potentially triggering a war. But who's daft enough to think that?

How would you expect Trump to react to this

Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us.

America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away.

What a disgrace.

I know how I would. We should have dropped the pretense we are dealing with reasonable people 3 years ago.

 

[Archies Ghost]

It’s hard to say what sort of move this is at this point. I do know Trump was relentless about alleging that Obama would start a war to help him get re-elected, it wasn’t just one tweet, it was something he harped on.

So we know that Trump has considered this as an option to help his re-election. We also know he has a lot of difficulty separating his own goals from his official acts.

We know that the attack on the US embassy was a reaction to a US action. It’s hard for me to say this was entirely provoked by Iran at this point in time. I don’t see it.

The US says they had evidence of a imminent plot to harm US citizens. We shall see, I suppose. How history judges this action will depend a great deal on how Trump navigates the fall out. If he draws us into a costly war, he will be entering “W” category. And justifiably so.

This is poor analysis based upon a flawed reading of the Trump voter.

Trump has to avoid starting a war, especially a war viewed as unnecessary, in order to hold on to his base.

A ground war with Iran is not in Trump's interest politically. It also happens to be in our national interest.

Iran is trying to provoke the United States into the sort of mess that will get Trump out of office. Iran cannot survive 5 more years of the present sanctions.