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

superchuck500

does good at rockets
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
551
Reaction score
1,065
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Trump broke an unspoken rule.

For centuries, it has been okay to slaughter peasants in their thousands but princes and kings were often seen as bargaining chips and thus worth more alive.

Over time, this has morphed into an unwritten rule of warfare to avoid targeting "political" leaders.

Obviously, Soleimani considered himself in that protected class, as he was driving around in the open in the conflict zone.

I like everything about Trump changing the dynamic in this way. It will change the way those who would challenge the United States will operate and lets them all know they are, personally, fair game if they choose be present in the conflict zone.

It also puts US leadership in a position to also feel threatened when in theater and might just change the behavior that has resulted in a long series of never ending conflicts.

I would rather two Generals face each other with pistols at 10 paces to decide a conflict as opposed to killing a few thousand Americans and a hundred thousand of the other guy's kids during decades of pointless conflict.

I know it is very difficult for some to see anything positive emanating from Donald Trump but killing Soleimani should be a bright spot for anyone to see.

If Trump had responded by killing a few hundred anonymous Iranian proxy fighters in Iraq, what would have been accomplished and would anyone be behaving any differently?

If he is going to be pilloried from the left no matter what, I much prefer decisive action that is clearly different from what the US has been doing for 40 years against Iran.
I can understand the appeal of this perspective - and I do think that Soleimani's death substantially degrades Iran's operational capability in the near term. But I think the idea that it will reduce civilian and rank-and-file military deaths is probably optimistic . . . we have removed key operational Iranian military figures in the past.

This piece from long-time Mid East conflict correspondent and author Sam Dagher is, unfortunately, probably closer to what is likely going to happen. The "retaliation" missile attack last week was merely a tool for Tehran to relieve the pressure by de-escalating. After Iran re-groups and re-organizes after Soleimani's death, the real retribution will begin in the Iranian style and capability.

Given these limits to Iran’s short-term capabilities, it will likely focus on assessing the impact of Soleimani’s killing, plugging holes and vulnerabilities in its intelligence and security apparatus, reevaluating its strategy and approach, and streamlining its operations throughout the region. Tehran will also seize opportunities for détente with its regional archnemesis, Saudi Arabia, and seek rapprochement with the region’s Sunni Arabs, whose animosity toward Iran worsened after it partnered with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to crush an uprising in Syria, primarily carried out by the country’s Sunnis, that began in 2011.

Over time, the United States, Israel, and their allies—and all those perceived as harming Iran’s regional strategy—will face retribution, though, most likely in the form of covert operations and actions that will be much harder to trace back to Tehran. It would, in a way, be back to basics: bombings, assassinations, and stealth tactics long attributed to Mughniyeh. Indeed, Soleimani himself touted such efforts both at the memorial service for Mughniyeh and in a rare TV interview he gave in October. As Soleimani put it, it is the technique of “appearing like a sword and disappearing like a ghost.” It’s as if he were instructing his soldiers on the path they would have to take after his demise.
 

Dadsdream

Ugly people have ugly children.
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
850
Reaction score
546
Age
63
Location
Hancock
Offline
Providing sources does not mean you have answered the question asked.
This is the tiresome "go fetch" game, like the apprentice carpenter who is sent to find a "board stretcher" or the young airman sent to find "50 gallons of prop wash." No answers will be deemed sufficient and the poster is sent off on a wild goose chase to find more answers to amuse the detractor . . . over and over and over. Not playing that game, sorry.
If you don't like the Pentagon's findings about the IED/Soleimani connection, that's fine. I've answered all questions to my satisfaction. Go look it up yourself.
Can't make everybody happy.
Could be worse . . . we could be Clemson fans this morning!
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
266
Reaction score
125
Age
50
Location
New Orleans
Offline
We could use the defense from a few good men here.

You know why was he not packed.

If we had Intel on attacks then why was the security turned not up to eleven?

With all the locker her up stuff stems from under staffed security at an embassy why are the embassy's normally staffed in this case?
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
510
Reaction score
393
Age
52
Location
Houston
Offline
In this thread specifically, all the deaths can be tied to Trump.

If the bar for success is that he killed Soleimani, then sure, it was a success. However, if we assassinated Putin, which led to a nuclear war that we then lost, would killing Putin be framed as a success?

It's not the killing of Soleimani that is the issue, per se. It's the justification and the events that have followed or may follow in the future as a direct result of killing Soleimani that are the problem.

Generally the right move only in the sense that he was a bad guy. We took out Saddam Hussein for basically the same reasons, and in hindsight that was clearly not the right move. "WMD" and "imminent threat" seem to have quite a few similarities here.

Bin Laden and Soleimani are not comparable figures. One masterminded the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. The other did some stuff in the Middle East that no one cared about until last week.

The reaction to each is different because killing bin Laden was justified because of 9/11 and there was very little downside to taking him out. On the other hand, there are very possible negative consequences to taking out Soleimani, and it is difficult to see the justification for taking him out other than getting us talking about this rather than impeachment.
Tying the airliner shoot down to Trump is ridiculous.

It is an obvious attempt to smear Trump.

The left immediately declared the embassy attack as Trump's Benghazi, implying (hoping?) that he would be paralyzed into doing nothing.

Trump responds, not by blowing up random Iranian facilities or killing a few hundred Iranian proxy fighters, instead choosing to kill recognized military leadership. This is something not in the playbook and seriously challenged Iran.

Their response was to notify the United States through Iraq that a missile attack was forthcoming. They fired missiles in an obvious face saving gesture meant to de-escalate the confrontation while trying to maintain credibility at home. Remember, they proclaimed 80 Americans were killed in that attack.

Unfortunately for Iran, they stupidly left their air defenses on high alert post attack and allowed civilian traffic to operate in range of those air defenses.

The resulting shoot down was denied for three days but in the face of mounting evidence, they were forced to admit what they did.

Since then Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, an Olympic athlete has defected, and two prominent journalists have quit, citing the lies of regime regarding the shoot down. The Iranian regime is in the midst of the most serious crisis since 1979.

You may not care about what Soleimani has done for the past 4 decades but he is easily equal to Bin Laden.

Some believe his killing to be more strategically significant than Bin Laden.


Killing Soleimani was a bold strike with potential negative consequences. Iran had two choices, escalate or de-escalate. They chose to de-escalate.

The shoot down points to widespread fear in the Iranian military of the power and reach of the United States. The operators in that SA-15 battery feared the United States was reaching out to kill them mere hours after Iran's response.

The Iranian regime will not go quietly into the night. However, they have made a series of mistakes that the United States has capitalized on and Iran is now in a weakened position.

It has been demonstrated that they are not the all-powerful puppet master in the region and that they are not militarily willing or capable of directly confronting the United States. They have been unable to convince US allies to circumvent sanctions and the economic pressure is resulting in protests in the streets of Iran.

If this series of events were under the leadership of a Democratic president, CNN would be wall to wall with it and this board would be crowing from the roof tops.

Unfortunately, for Iran and the rest of the world, hatred of Donald Trump trumps all.

We see America divided when it should easily be united in support of the Iranian people and the policy and actions that have led to this point.
 

superchuck500

does good at rockets
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
551
Reaction score
1,065
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Tying the airliner shoot down to Trump is ridiculous.

It is an obvious attempt to smear Trump.

The left immediately declared the embassy attack as Trump's Benghazi, implying (hoping?) that he would be paralyzed into doing nothing.

Trump responds, not by blowing up random Iranian facilities or killing a few hundred Iranian proxy fighters, instead choosing to kill recognized military leadership. This is something not in the playbook and seriously challenged Iran.

Their response was to notify the United States through Iraq that a missile attack was forthcoming. They fired missiles in an obvious face saving gesture meant to de-escalate the confrontation while trying to maintain credibility at home. Remember, they proclaimed 80 Americans were killed in that attack.
Just to be complete, the next sentence should be, Trump then immediately blames the missile attack on Obama.

He's every bit as culpable (or more, given the history) in this mess of a political environment in which we find ourselves.
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
266
Reaction score
125
Age
50
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Tying the airliner shoot down to Trump is ridiculous.

It is an obvious attempt to smear Trump.

The left immediately declared the embassy attack as Trump's Benghazi, implying (hoping?) that he would be paralyzed into doing nothing.

Trump responds, not by blowing up random Iranian facilities or killing a few hundred Iranian proxy fighters, instead choosing to kill recognized military leadership. This is something not in the playbook and seriously challenged Iran.

Their response was to notify the United States through Iraq that a missile attack was forthcoming. They fired missiles in an obvious face saving gesture meant to de-escalate the confrontation while trying to maintain credibility at home. Remember, they proclaimed 80 Americans were killed in that attack.

Unfortunately for Iran, they stupidly left their air defenses on high alert post attack and allowed civilian traffic to operate in range of those air defenses.

The resulting shoot down was denied for three days but in the face of mounting evidence, they were forced to admit what they did.

Since then Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, an Olympic athlete has defected, and two prominent journalists have quit, citing the lies of regime regarding the shoot down. The Iranian regime is in the midst of the most serious crisis since 1979.

You may not care about what Soleimani has done for the past 4 decades but he is easily equal to Bin Laden.

Some believe his killing to be more strategically significant than Bin Laden.


Killing Soleimani was a bold strike with potential negative consequences. Iran had two choices, escalate or de-escalate. They chose to de-escalate.

The shoot down points to widespread fear in the Iranian military of the power and reach of the United States. The operators in that SA-15 battery feared the United States was reaching out to kill them mere hours after Iran's response.

The Iranian regime will not go quietly into the night. However, they have made a series of mistakes that the United States has capitalized on and Iran is now in a weakened position.

It has been demonstrated that they are not the all-powerful puppet master in the region and that they are not militarily willing or capable of directly confronting the United States. They have been unable to convince US allies to circumvent sanctions and the economic pressure is resulting in protests in the streets of Iran.

If this series of events were under the leadership of a Democratic president, CNN would be wall to wall with it and this board would be crowing from the roof tops.

Unfortunately, for Iran and the rest of the world, hatred of Donald Trump trumps all.

We see America divided when it should easily be united in support of the Iranian people and the policy and actions that have led to this point.

This is all blind luck horrible that the commercial plane got shot down.

Without their mistake we would not have the reaction we are getting now.

It easily could have been the other way.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
1,005
Reaction score
1,240
Location
Midwest
Offline
Tying the airliner shoot down to Trump is ridiculous.

It is an obvious attempt to smear Trump.

The left immediately declared the embassy attack as Trump's Benghazi, implying (hoping?) that he would be paralyzed into doing nothing.

Trump responds, not by blowing up random Iranian facilities or killing a few hundred Iranian proxy fighters, instead choosing to kill recognized military leadership. This is something not in the playbook and seriously challenged Iran.

Their response was to notify the United States through Iraq that a missile attack was forthcoming. They fired missiles in an obvious face saving gesture meant to de-escalate the confrontation while trying to maintain credibility at home. Remember, they proclaimed 80 Americans were killed in that attack.

Unfortunately for Iran, they stupidly left their air defenses on high alert post attack and allowed civilian traffic to operate in range of those air defenses.

The resulting shoot down was denied for three days but in the face of mounting evidence, they were forced to admit what they did.

Since then Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, an Olympic athlete has defected, and two prominent journalists have quit, citing the lies of regime regarding the shoot down. The Iranian regime is in the midst of the most serious crisis since 1979.

You may not care about what Soleimani has done for the past 4 decades but he is easily equal to Bin Laden.

Some believe his killing to be more strategically significant than Bin Laden.


Killing Soleimani was a bold strike with potential negative consequences. Iran had two choices, escalate or de-escalate. They chose to de-escalate.

The shoot down points to widespread fear in the Iranian military of the power and reach of the United States. The operators in that SA-15 battery feared the United States was reaching out to kill them mere hours after Iran's response.

The Iranian regime will not go quietly into the night. However, they have made a series of mistakes that the United States has capitalized on and Iran is now in a weakened position.

It has been demonstrated that they are not the all-powerful puppet master in the region and that they are not militarily willing or capable of directly confronting the United States. They have been unable to convince US allies to circumvent sanctions and the economic pressure is resulting in protests in the streets of Iran.

If this series of events were under the leadership of a Democratic president, CNN would be wall to wall with it and this board would be crowing from the roof tops.

Unfortunately, for Iran and the rest of the world, hatred of Donald Trump trumps all.

We see America divided when it should easily be united in support of the Iranian people and the policy and actions that have led to this point.
I‘m curious, has Trump ever done anything that was ill advised in your opinion? And do you really believe that people who just happen to think Trump is a raging narcissist who has poor impulse control, cares nothing about learning about our form of government and lies like a rug are just consumed by hatred of him? I can assure you I don’t hate Trump. I am disgusted by his personality and his behavior and I wouldn’t care for him to be a role model for my children, but I have never hated him. I would never go to a rally and chant “lock him up” for example. I would never chant to “send him back” to wherever his ancestors came from.

You have zero room to talk, in any case, with your recent thread about Pelosi, IMO. That thread just shows how willing you are to refuse to see anything vile that Trump does, like his photoshopped tweet of Pelosi and Schumer. Or his vile insistence that democrats love terrorists. But a tweet about renewed Russian military hacking activities apparently in support of Trump makes you call the Speaker of the House insane.

And then you get all pious about Americans being divided and say that Trump’s recklessness should be applauded, as if we have any idea what the eventual consequences will be at this point in time.

Archie you are one of the most partisan poster here and you have no business lecturing anybody about being divisive. Just my opinion, physician heal thyself.
 

LonghornSaint

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
23
Reaction score
34
Age
50
Location
New Haven, CT
Online
Here is a pretty good write-up on some contributing factors in the shooting down of the airlines. I have read a lot of articles by Tyler Rogoway, and I think he typically does a thorough job.

 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
118
Reaction score
520
Age
33
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Tying the airliner shoot down to Trump is ridiculous.

It is an obvious attempt to smear Trump.

The left immediately declared the embassy attack as Trump's Benghazi, implying (hoping?) that he would be paralyzed into doing nothing.

Trump responds, not by blowing up random Iranian facilities or killing a few hundred Iranian proxy fighters, instead choosing to kill recognized military leadership. This is something not in the playbook and seriously challenged Iran.

Their response was to notify the United States through Iraq that a missile attack was forthcoming. They fired missiles in an obvious face saving gesture meant to de-escalate the confrontation while trying to maintain credibility at home. Remember, they proclaimed 80 Americans were killed in that attack.

Unfortunately for Iran, they stupidly left their air defenses on high alert post attack and allowed civilian traffic to operate in range of those air defenses.

The resulting shoot down was denied for three days but in the face of mounting evidence, they were forced to admit what they did.

Since then Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, an Olympic athlete has defected, and two prominent journalists have quit, citing the lies of regime regarding the shoot down. The Iranian regime is in the midst of the most serious crisis since 1979.

You may not care about what Soleimani has done for the past 4 decades but he is easily equal to Bin Laden.

Some believe his killing to be more strategically significant than Bin Laden.


Killing Soleimani was a bold strike with potential negative consequences. Iran had two choices, escalate or de-escalate. They chose to de-escalate.

The shoot down points to widespread fear in the Iranian military of the power and reach of the United States. The operators in that SA-15 battery feared the United States was reaching out to kill them mere hours after Iran's response.

The Iranian regime will not go quietly into the night. However, they have made a series of mistakes that the United States has capitalized on and Iran is now in a weakened position.

It has been demonstrated that they are not the all-powerful puppet master in the region and that they are not militarily willing or capable of directly confronting the United States. They have been unable to convince US allies to circumvent sanctions and the economic pressure is resulting in protests in the streets of Iran.

If this series of events were under the leadership of a Democratic president, CNN would be wall to wall with it and this board would be crowing from the roof tops.

Unfortunately, for Iran and the rest of the world, hatred of Donald Trump trumps all.

We see America divided when it should easily be united in support of the Iranian people and the policy and actions that have led to this point.
After Trump imposed a travel ban that inexplicably carved out exceptions for countries of origin for the 9/11 attackers and then took his first foreign trip to Saudi Arabia, I’ve wondered whether there was some secret foreign policy agenda Trump was executing on behalf of Iran’s Middle East enemies UAE and SA. This would potentially involve isolating Iran and provoking it into conflict. The tearing up of the nuclear deal and rhetoric in the interim have added to that concern. The failed strike on Shahlai in Yemen doesn’t quite fit the logic of the strike on Soleimani given that he’s more fighting the Saudis and Emiratis than us. The Emiratis wanted Soleimani dead for a long time per Erik Prince’s 2016 memo to Trump. [Edited to correct and clarify the previous sentence: the Prince memo was in 2015 and it was not self-evident from the articles discussing it that the memo was sent to the Trump campaign on behalf of the UAE, but given Prince's extensive ties to UAE, it's nearly certain that UAE's foreign policy goals (and therefore SA's foreign policy goals) influenced its creation].

Looking at the bigger picture, our relationship with Iran has deteriorated under this administration because of unsupported claims of Iran’s non-compliance with the nuclear deal. The attack on the embassy, our retaliation, and Iran’s retaliation to our retaliation were predictable escalations that relate to the re-imposition of pre-deal sanctions.

If this latest escapade turns out to be the end of the Trump admin’s hostility towards Iran and vice versa, I’ll be in better position to consider whether this particular strike was nothing more than a strategic military gamble that paid off for us, because it did appear to me that Iran was just saving face in its response. If further escalations with Iran don’t ultimately come to pass, then it increases the odds I’m mistaken about any sort of broader agenda involving SA and UAE. I just don’t think the Iran conflict is over by a long shot, and that we will see more rhetoric and provocation from both Trump and Iran in coming months. I hope I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:

superchuck500

does good at rockets
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
551
Reaction score
1,065
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Here is a pretty good write-up on some contributing factors in the shooting down of the airlines. I have read a lot of articles by Tyler Rogoway, and I think he typically does a thorough job.

That's a well-done piece, thanks.

And I think it dovetails with this piece from national security and global affairs writer at Atlantic, Uri Friedman, who argues that the downing of PS752 shows just how dangerous this game is with Iran - leaders may think they're in control of the levers of escalation and de-escalation, but that control is not total . . . and unintended results and accidents are easier to come by than the leaders likely appreciate.

But the shoot-down isn’t just some side event in the latest chapter of this story. It is the story, just as much as the U.S. and Iranian governments deciding to de-escalate hostilities is. The incident is a glaring example of how the months-long tit for tat between the two countries—which is far from over, even though their confrontation is for the moment less violent—can spiral out of control even when neither side wants it to. And it should serve as a counterweight to any notion that the parties have full command over the struggle they’ve been stepping up ever since the Trump administration withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

It’s revealing that the most recent round of hostilities between the countries was bookended by mistakes and misperceptions. The Times reported that the triggering event—a rocket attack by an Iranian-backed militia in late December that killed an American contractor at an Iraqi military base—was intended to exert pressure on the United States but not escalate the conflict, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. “The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that [the contractor] was killed,” the paper noted.

Whatever Iran’s intention, the attack did indeed leave an American dead. Which prompted the Trump administration to kill dozens of militia members in retaliatory strikes. Which led to supporters of that militia storming the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Which resulted in Trump ordering the targeted killing of the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. Which moved Iran to fire missiles at Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. forces. Which caused the Iranians to brace for blowback from the United States, creating the conditions in which an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile operator apparently mistook Flight 752 for an American cruise missile and, with 10 seconds to act and his communication channels malfunctioning, blasted it out of the sky above Tehran.
 

UriUT

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
Location
New Orleans
Offline
I find it humorous that "Conservatives" on this board have abandoned any pretense of American exceptionalism in foreign policy. Ironically, it was America that criticized the Europeans for their power politics of might makes right and laid the groundwork for what would hold relative peace for roughly 70 years. And to further this disconnect from what we have learned I remind those advocating this notion of killing high profile figures, i present Archduke Ferdinand. If it wasn't for Iranian "rational" play, we'd have a high chance of escalation and possibly war.
 

superchuck500

does good at rockets
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
551
Reaction score
1,065
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
I find it humorous that "Conservatives" on this board have abandoned any pretense of American exceptionalism in foreign policy. Ironically, it was America that criticized the Europeans for their power politics of might makes right and laid the groundwork for what would hold relative peace for roughly 70 years. And to further this disconnect erom what we have learned I remind those advocating this notion of killing high profile figures, i present Archduke Ferdinand. If it wasn't for Iranian "rational" play, we'd have a high chance of escalation and possibly war.
Not really the best analogy IMO, the Ferdinand incident was perpetrated by local dissidents and spiraled into world war because of an entrenched alliance system. I also don't think it's accurate to define Iranian conduct as rational, and suggest that US conduct has been irrational. If the US was hell bent on war, the missile attack was more than enough pretext to respond. Yes, the Iranians were careful to present an "off-ramp" - a chance to de-escalate, but the US also welcomed it. Similarly, the US has exercised restraint in responding to the Iranian downing of a US drone in international airspace.

Both nations are apparently trying to walk the fine line between antagonism and restraint in order to avoid broader conflict. It's quite risky - but that's apparent at this point.
 

UriUT

New member
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
Location
New Orleans
Offline
That's a well-done piece, thanks.

And I think it dovetails with this piece from national security and global affairs writer at Atlantic, Uri Friedman, who argues that the downing of PS752 shows just how dangerous this game is with Iran - leaders may think they're in control of the levers of escalation and de-escalation, but that control is not total . . . and unintended results and accidents are easier to come by than the leaders likely appreciate.



Beyond this and future collateral damage, what is the endgame here? What is it that America wants? Regime change? Unlikely. Iran's capitulation? Unlikely. Iran's pledge to stop their hegemonic regional play? Unlikely. A pledge to end ballistic missiles? Yeah ask them what just landed near our troops. So, is it to end weapons grade nuclear development? Oh the same one that we had on the table? The same one that Israeli intelligence said "Iran is a very rational player" (supported by their recent action) and would be amenable to negotiation? Oh and the same intelligence report remarked that Iran really doesn't want to develop nuclear weapons? They had opportunities to take that next step but oddly stopped each time.

Not really the best analogy IMO, the Ferdinand incident was perpetrated by local dissidents and spiraled into world war because of an entrenched alliance system. I also don't think it's accurate to define Iranian conduct as rational, and suggest that US conduct has been irrational. If the US was hell bent on war, the missile attack was more than enough pretext to respond. Yes, the Iranians were careful to present an "off-ramp" - a chance to de-escalate, but the US also welcomed it. Similarly, the US has exercised restraint in responding to the Iranian downing of a US drone in international airspace.

Both nations are apparently trying to walk the fine line between antagonism and restraint in order to avoid broader conflict. It's quite risky - but that's apparent at this point.
Iran has been crippled by the US to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. They realize they are on the wrong end of a military asymmetry. They also know that if they get nuclear weapons (as someone astutely said we cannot kill putin because of nuclear weapons), that it'll be a great deterrent. They are under assault. How would one feel in the face of existential danger? After killing their martyr, their response is to blow up some infrastructure, knowing that they do not want further damage to the fledgling economy and infrastructure or worse. How else would you categorize their thought process? Irrational for defending themselves? And as I've mentioned above, they had ample opportunities to develop nuclear grade material even setting aside the US/Israeli sabotage. They didn't. Also, I didn't say the US acted irrationally. Foolish perhaps based on my above rhetorical question. And that leads me to my next question. Why are we so hell bent on wiping Iran off the face of the earth?

And I realize that Ferdinand was killed by local partisans who wanted independence. The idea is of power politics vs wilsonian ideals. One party feels killing the archduke would fulfill their objective. No set rules to mediate, just the asymmetry of power. And that consequence was the power politics dynamic of the european treaties that bound them to WWI. We have the power to kill anyone doesn't mean we should. We have ideals. Defending human rights....etc. Well we're a bunch of hypocrites now in that regard aren't we?

Edit: And I want to add that though we are militarily superior in Iraq, we are most definitely on the wrong end of the asymmetry of the hegemonic dynamics. Killing him was an act of desperation to stent that imbalance. Ironically, that act only widens it. We were asked to come back into Iraq because they trusted us to be fair brokers. After this, we've lost that trust. Apart from sending our military back to occupy, we're holding on by a thread there.
 
Last edited:

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
510
Reaction score
393
Age
52
Location
Houston
Offline
I‘m curious, has Trump ever done anything that was ill advised in your opinion? And do you really believe that people who just happen to think Trump is a raging narcissist who has poor impulse control, cares nothing about learning about our form of government and lies like a rug are just consumed by hatred of him? I can assure you I don’t hate Trump. I am disgusted by his personality and his behavior and I wouldn’t care for him to be a role model for my children, but I have never hated him. I would never go to a rally and chant “lock him up” for example. I would never chant to “send him back” to wherever his ancestors came from.

You have zero room to talk, in any case, with your recent thread about Pelosi, IMO. That thread just shows how willing you are to refuse to see anything vile that Trump does, like his photoshopped tweet of Pelosi and Schumer. Or his vile insistence that democrats love terrorists. But a tweet about renewed Russian military hacking activities apparently in support of Trump makes you call the Speaker of the House insane.

And then you get all pious about Americans being divided and say that Trump’s recklessness should be applauded, as if we have any idea what the eventual consequences will be at this point in time.

Archie you are one of the most partisan poster here and you have no business lecturing anybody about being divisive. Just my opinion, physician heal thyself.
Its rather amusing being preached at about partisanship by you. Thanks for the laugh.

:p
 

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.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom