Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:

Man, I'm a little surprised at the reactions in here.  This guy was a terrible human, had organized and was organizing more killings of Americans, orchestrated all kinds of shit in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc, helped organize Iranian proxy terrorist attacks all over the globe, and had just organized this 'spontaneous' attack on the Embassy and 95% of the people in here are pissed off because the assumption is there was no planning, forethought, or concern for repercussions.  Trump is no neocon and he will not send 100k plus troops or whatever we had in Iraq.  Iran overplayed, and has been overplaying, their hand and Soleimani was the head of the military command.  This 3 days of mourning is buying time to figure out a response that will allow them to save face.  While Dotard does not appear to have any strategic plan, the Iranians do.  They will play out all scenarios and come to the same conclusion. They would lose and lose badly and now they know we can and will target leadership.

[maninblack 7974]

In case you hadn't heard

 

[DixonHur 11234]

3 minutes ago, maninblack said:

In case you hadn't heard

 

Sweet, this war will pay for itself

[babysdaddy 2718]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That "cold war" has seen Iran arm and direct numerous movements/groups that have killed Americans and our allies.  Even if all that does is "continue," how is that a damned win?  And of course, you and I and anyone with an ounce of sanity knows that Iran has no choice but to escalate their activities.  You should never put an enemy in a position where they have no choice but to cause you great injury (unless, of course, you're engaged in total war), and we've done exactly that.

Iran did all that under this guys direction and leadership.  He led their global strategy.  He's dead. It's a win. 

And you are exactly right, you shouldn't put an enemy in that position.  They, Iran....the bad guys, did it to us as soon as they attacked the Embassy.  

[babysdaddy 2718]

9 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Rather than a picture you should've posted something more on brand. 

Like this "Look guys, babysdaddy is right.  the middle east just needs our leadership and help killing some of the bad guys then it will all be peaceful.  They just need us to help them realize democracy is the best and the only way to do that is to drop some bombs."

[Brisketexan 104661]

1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

Iran did all that under this guys direction and leadership.  He led their global strategy.  He's dead. It's a win. 

And you are exactly right, you shouldn't put an enemy in that position.  They, Iran....the bad guys, did it to us as soon as they attacked the Embassy.  

Oh.  So this is retaliation for the embassy attack in which [checks notes] nobody died and the inner perimeter was never breached?  Dude.  Come one.  Iran has been behind a LOT worse shit than this, and we've wisely avoided starting an open, hot war with them.  This is neocon idiocy on repeat, pure and simple.  

[bad_teammate 13133]

Love to be an anti-government conservative who immediately believes everything the government says without evidence

[LongestHorn 759]

4 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

MBS for sure. In fact I would bet Kushner and MBS's bromance had a lot to do with this. A US/Iran all out war is Saudi's wet dream. Let the American's spend their blood and treasure to the benefit of the Kingdom. 

Anyone recall Lebanese pedo George Nader, Israeli Joel Zamel from Psy Group from Mueller report?  This is from November 2018.

Senior Saudi officials close to the crown prince met with business leaders, including an Israeli, last year to inquire about the possibility of using private firms to assassinate prominent Iranian officials and hamstring the Tehran’s economy, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

The Israeli present at the meeting was Joel Zamel, a strategist with an intelligence background whose now defunct Psy-Group firm is under investigation by the FBI and is suspected of pitching a media manipulation plan for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Also involved in the talks of potential regime change in Iran was Lebanese-American businessman George Nader, a representative of the United Arab Emirates, who reportedly set up the meeting.  During one meeting in Riyadh in March 2017, aides to Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri broached the possibility of assassinating top Iranian enemies of the kingdom, including Qassim Suleimani, the leader of the paramilitary Quds force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Times reported.

Edited January 3, 2020 by LongestHorn

[babysdaddy 2718]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh.  So this is retaliation for the embassy attack in which [checks notes] nobody died and the inner perimeter was never breached?  Dude.  Come one.  Iran has been behind a LOT worse shit than this, and we've wisely avoided starting an open, hot war with them.  This is neocon idiocy on repeat, pure and simple.  

Are you surprised that we might get a little trigger happy when Iran fucks with one of embassies [checks notes from 1979]? Neocon idiocy would be using this to facilitate a war.  I don't think that will happen.  You do.  Nothing to argue about.

[washparkhorn 9935]

The shape of the battlefield as of November 2019:

Quote

MANAMA, Bahrain—Since May, the Pentagon has dispatched 14,000 additional U.S. troops, an aircraft carrier, and tens of thousands of pounds of military equipment to the Middle East to respond to what it says are alarming new threats from Iran. But despite the stepped-up U.S. military posture, the top U.S. general in the region believes the Iranian threat continues to rise—and Tehran is likely to continue lashing out.

“I think the strike on Saudi Aramco in September is pretty indicative of a nation that is behaving irresponsibly,” said Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, in a Friday interview, referring to the Sept. 14 Iran-sponsored attack on Saudi facilities that took half of Riyadh’s oil production offline. 

“My judgment is that it is very possible they will attack again.”  

McKenzie, who stepped into his new job in March, assumed command of the world’s most volatile theater at a particularly turbulent time. Over the past eight months, the Taliban has intensified attacks in Afghanistan, Turkey invaded northeast Syria, the Islamic State has threatened to resurge, and Yemen continues to be the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. But Iran is the one common thread undermining regional stability through direct attacks on its neighbors, supporting disruptive proxies such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and increasingly penetrating Iraq and Syria. 

While Iran’s primary goal is to preserve its clerical regime, Tehran has long had hegemonic ambitions, McKenzie said. Over the last 10 years, Iran has invested heavily in ballistic missiles and other capabilities in order to threaten its neighbors. Indeed, according to a new report on Iran’s military power from the Defense Intelligence Agency—the first of its kind—Tehran significantly increased its defense spending from its recent low in 2014 to $27.3 billion, or 6 percent of GDP, in 2018.

In recent months, the regime has lashed out against a new threat: a U.S. maximum pressure campaign that has imposed heavy economic costs, including forcing Iran to slash its defense budget to $20.7 billion, or 3.8 percent of GDP, in 2019. In addition to Iran’s alleged attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Sept. 14 attack on Saudi oil, U.S. defense officials have been warning for months about “credible” threats to U.S. forces, but they have declined to say what exactly that threat looks like.

McKenzie shed new light on the threat, saying he is particularly concerned about the possibility of a strike involving large numbers of drones and missiles—much like the Aramco attack, which used dozens of Iran-manufactured cruise missiles and drones to devastate Saudi oil infrastructure. 

U.S. officials are particularly concerned about the threat to critical desalination plants in the Gulf, said a senior U.S. military official in the region. An attack on these facilities, which could threaten the region’s primary source of drinking water and potentially cause a humanitarian crisis, would be a “gamechanger,” the official said.

McKenzie cautioned that Tehran’s actions are unpredictable. “I wouldn’t discount anything from Iran,” McKenzie said. “When a nation behaves that irresponsibly, you have to be very cautious when you evaluate what they might do in the future.”

So far, the U.S. response to Iranian threat has been “scoped”—designed to send a strong deterrent message but not to provoke fresh attacks, McKenzie said. The additional forces the Pentagon has sent to the region are mostly defensive: an aircraft carrier strike group, fighter and bomber squadrons, as well as air and missile defense batteries.

McKenzie sent the carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, on a transit through the Strait of Hormuz last week for the first time since it deployed to demonstrate U.S. naval power before it heads home. The Lincoln, which will soon be replaced by a new carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman, was diverted to the Middle East in May to respond to the Iranian threat, but had remained in the Arabian Sea. 

But so far, these moves have had “mixed” results, McKenzie said. Tehran has successfully been deterred from attacking U.S. forces, but not from taking provocative actions against regional partners.

Perhaps part of the reason Iran has continued to raise the temperature in the region is because it has so far not faced any significant repercussions. Even Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, usually a staunch ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, criticized the president’s last-minute decision not to launch a retaliatory strike after Tehran shot down an expensive U.S. surveillance drone in June, saying the regime saw it “as a sign of weakness.”

In addition to shoring up U.S. defenses in the region, McKenzie is working to rally international support for countering Iran. So far, six nations have signed on to the United States’ International Maritime Security Coalition, a multinational naval force designed to provide security for commercial ships in the vital Strait of Hormuz: the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and Albania. 

Speaking at the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on Saturday, McKenzie stressed the impact of Iran’s recent attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf on the global market, noting that insurance rates for oil tankers have increased by a factor of 10 since May. He praised the efforts of the maritime coalition so far, calling it a “good, albeit nascent” measure, and urged regional partners to band together against Tehran.

“Unfortunately, sometimes the Iranian regime has proved itself to be the bully in the neighborhood. And the only way to stand up to a bully is to do it together. ” McKenzie told the audience. “It’s a great big world, and there’s a lot of water to cover.”

Under the maritime coalition, initially dubbed “Operation Sentinel,” the coalition keeps two so-called Sentinel ships at each end of the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, typically a high-end U.S. or U.K. asset such as an Arleigh Burke destroyer, McKenzie told Foreign Policy. Those warships are linked into an “elaborate overhead intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance architecture” that allows the coalition to monitor activities in the Gulf.

“Our intent to shine a spotlight on malign and illegal activity,” McKenzie said. “We don’t have enough ships to be everywhere all the time and we don’t seek to be, but what we found though is that when people are worried about attribution of their acts, they tend to behave better.”

Depending on the daily threat level, the coalition will “fairly frequently” send warships to escort commercial vessels through the Strait, McKenzie said. However, it’s the “unblinking stare overhead” that serves as the most effective deterrent, rather than the presence of warships, he stressed. 

“Since the [coalition] has begun over the last couple of months we have been able to move stuff through the Strait of Hormuz pretty much without interference,” he said.

Experts have expressed skepticism about the International Maritime Security Coalition, noting that the United States struggled initially to shore up any international support for the effort after it was announced this summer. While several countries have since signed on, there is still little representation from Europe and none from Asia. 

European nations such as France have indicated that they will participate in a separate, EU-led maritime security initiative, primarily to distance themselves from the U.S. maximum pressure campaign. But the senior U.S. military official expressed skepticism that the effort will get off the ground, calling it “perpetually nascent.”

The initiative also raises the risk that the U.S. military could be dragged into conflict if the Gulf states engage in hostilities with Iran, experts said. Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, questioned the “competence” of some Gulf navies.

“They could certainly sail with the tankers, but if they got into trouble over it, the question is who would support them and how,” Cordesman told Foreign Policy in June.

Iran’s malign activities don’t end in the Strait of Hormuz. McKenzie is also concerned about Tehran’s actions in Syria, particularly moving in weapon systems that directly threaten Israel, and in Iraq, where the regime is quietly penetrating Iraq’s elected government. And in Yemen, Iran is working to undermine recent progress toward peace between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and Houthi rebels, which Tehran has supported with arms and other resources. 

“As usual, the major actor that’s working to sabotage that is Iran,” which wants to prevent a relationship between the Houthis and Riyadh, McKenzie said. “Left to their own devices I think the Houthis might be able to come to some relationship with the Saudis.”

Although McKenzie believes the United States has robust defenses against Iran, there is only so much deterrence can do when faced with an irrational actor.

“Deterrence assumes there is going to be a rational actor on the other end,” he said. “There is a basic recklessness and irresponsibility to their actions that makes you very concerned about what they might do tomorrow or the next day, and that’s very concerning.” 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/23/very-possible-iran-will-attack-again-top-us-general-says/

 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

8 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Rather than a picture you should've posted something more on brand. 

Like this "Look guys, babysdaddy is right.  the middle east just needs our leadership and help killing some of the bad guys then it will all be peaceful.  They just need us to help them realize democracy is the best and the only way to do that is to drop some bombs."

[Brisketexan 104661]

Just now, babysdaddy said:

Are you surprised that we might get a little trigger happy when Iran fucks with one of embassies [checks notes from 1979]? Neocon idiocy would be using this to facilitate a war.  I don't think that will happen.  You do.  Nothing to argue about.

"Trigger happy" would have been relevant to a real-time response.  If we'd had an Apache fire into the crowd pushing at the walls, that would have been a discussion about being "trigger happy."

This had next to nothing to do with the embassy.  The crowd had dispersed, all immediate threat had passed.  This was about whipping our dick out and starting shit.  Come on.  Nobody's stupid enough to buy your narrative.

[babysdaddy 2718]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

"Trigger happy" would have been relevant to a real-time response.  If we'd had an Apache fire into the crowd pushing at the walls, that would have been a discussion about being "trigger happy."

This had next to nothing to do with the embassy.  The crowd had dispersed, all immediate threat had passed.  This was about whipping our dick out and starting shit.  Come on.  Nobody's stupid enough to buy your narrative.

My 'narrative' is that this guy being dead is good. That's it.  You already agreed with it.  Just not how it was done.  

[Brisketexan 104661]

3 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

My 'narrative' is that this guy being dead is good. That's it.  You already agreed with it.  Just not how it was done.  

Yeah....that's a pretty big fucking "just."  That "just" creates a heightened risk of a greater regional hot war.  So, kind of a big fucking deal.  But your dismissive language pretty much perfectly captures the thinking -- or utter lack thereof -- involved here.

[wildcat09 29267]

7 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

My 'narrative' is that this guy being dead is good. That's it.  You already agreed with it.  Just not how it was done.  

Saddam being dead was good. The things that resulted from us making that so were not. This isn't rocket science.

[maninblack 7974]

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

John Bolton is super pissed off.
 

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to sources close to the former national security adviser, a teary-eyed John Bolton wept in great pain and anguish that he left the Trump administration just before the war with Iran broke out.

 

"Wait -- what!?!" he had screamed as he saw that Trump had ordered a missile strike on Qasam Soleimani. "No... no... it can't be true... it just can't!"

https://babylonbee.com/news/john-bolton-cant-believe-he-quit-just-before-war-with-iran

Edited January 3, 2020 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[InkaUtexas 25530]

wow..... just wow. and in the comments people believe this...  

 

Talking about the USS Liberty tweet. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by InkaUtexas

[Guest Lobo]

5 minutes ago, maninblack said:

 

Not to mention his niece had those octuplets she couldn’t provide for after the first six kids.  What is wrong with this family?!?!?   

[InkaUtexas 25530]

Guess the strategy is hit them before they can regroup. 

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

The killing was ordered at the end of December after the attack on the K-1. The embassy had nothing to do with it, but added fuel to the fire. 

The K-1 attack.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-civilian-contractor-killed-troops-injured-rocket-attack/story?id=67949811

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by washparkhorn

[UpperWestside 6136]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nobody's stupid enough to buy your narrative.

I beg to differ. There are 63 million brain deficient Americans who buy it. 

[usmc0331horn 944]

Iran cannot melt steel beams.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

From 6 months ago, nothing ever changes: 

https://splinternews.com/say-no-war-you-cowards-1835724900

Spoiler

How are the psychological conditions in which a nation comes to accept fundamentally insane wars created? For an answer, you need only read the words of the sober, respected, and responsible New York Times editorial board.

 

 

 

 

This, truly, is a formulation of the issue that should be placed in the Newseum to illustrate exactly how the establishment press—under the guise of being the responsible and unbiased voices in the room—smooths the path to war for bloodthirsty, power-mad leaders.

Want war with Iran? Ask Congress first. In this headline you see all of the soulless, substance-free worship of process and power that defines the worst failures of the Washington press corps. On a day when U.S. war tensions with Iran have reached the point of actually launching military strikes, the editorial board of the New York Times, which can serve as well as anything in the media world as a proxy for “the voice of the establishment,” is focused most closely on the bureaucratic process by which war is authorized. They write that “cooler heads must prevail—and Congress must be consulted—as American and Iranian forces inch closer to open conflict in and around the Strait of Hormuz.” The most stringent lifelong right-wing warmongers who now hold power within the administration of our addled racist TV man president will surely think twice when they read these words from the New York Times: “if Mr. Trump and the Warhawk Caucus—led by the national security adviser, John Bolton; the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo; and Senator Tom Cotton—want a wider military conflict with Iran, they first need to persuade Congress and receive its approval.”

 

 

This insane, unnecessary sham war of a discredited ideology must be properly authorized, you see. We must have our paperwork in order before we start raining missiles down on Iranians who have already been economically destroyed by our sanctions. If the New York Times editorial board were babysitting your kids, they would make sure that they signed each and every release form before they let them go play in traffic.

This is how it happens. This is how the press becomes complicit in war. The mainstream press does not call for the war outright; they simply allow themselves to be dragged along into war by more cutthroat actors, insisting the entire time that the paperwork must be in order. This happened in Vietnam, and it happened in the buildup to the disastrous Iraq war, and you can see it happening again now. It is as if we are cursed to get into the same car wreck once per decade, watching it all play out in front of our eyes in dreadful slow motion, paralyzed and unable to stop it. If we have learned anything from all of the reporting on the Trump administration—and, for that matter, all of the reporting on previous administrations that went to war—it is that the process is just a tool for the final goal. The people who make wars don’t care about the process. They will manipulate the process as necessary to reach a desired end. The only suckers stuck on process are the press, the hapless referees, waving their finger about Congressional authorization as the warplanes are being armed.

As much as the media has bragged about how it is a heroic voice of truth and light, and as much as it has used the idea that the press is the front line of truth’s resistance to Donald Trump as a way to juice subscription numbers, when it comes right down to it, the sort of people who are empowered to speak for a thoroughly establishment institution like the New York Times find it impossible to free themselves from the hypnosis of Washington process in order to see the bigger picture. They are too close. They have just enough access to imagine that they are important players in this drama. Because of that, they are blind. This is why, in the buildup to the Iraq war, it was quite easy for millions of 19 year-olds to see that the entire enterprise was a predetermined, unjustified con job, yet the most powerful institutions of journalism in the United States could not. Forest, trees. The U.S. government has many years of practice exploiting this basic flaw in the way that self-important media outlets approach their jobs. And it will be exploited again.

The only thing to write is “no war.” You know, and I know, and every regular man and woman waking up and sending their kids to school and going to work knows that there is no fucking earthly reason for the United States of America to go to war with Iran in 2019. We do not need it. We are not calling for it. We do not need to be protected. This time around, the deliberate and intentional process of escalating “incidents” is even more transparent than it was before Iraq. A fucking random oil tanker? A fucking drone shot down? Nobody wants this, except a small sliver of right wing political players who have been pursuing this fight for many years and now, inside of a weak and persuadable and incompetent and corrupt administration, see their chance. You know this. I know this. Republicans know this, and Democrats know this as well. Now is the time to say no. No war, no war, no war, no war, no matter how much a few middle-aged men in suits who will not die in that war want one. No, no, no. This is all that needs to be reported. And yet here we are again, watching the press contort itself into unnatural shapes, struggling within the straitjacket of its own proclaimed lack of bias, used as a tool by unscrupulous politicians, unable to say what every rational person knows in their bones: This is crazy.

 

[Enchubben 5509]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh.  So this is retaliation for the embassy attack in which [checks notes] nobody died and the inner perimeter was never breached?  Dude.  Come one.  Iran has been behind a LOT worse shit than this, and we've wisely avoided starting an open, hot war with them.  This is neocon idiocy on repeat, pure and simple.  

Surly you aren’t suggesting because they were unsuccessful in breaching the inner embassy and killing additional Americans that this response was not warranted, right?  

[atomheartbevo 89457]

3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

Maybe this was lost in my longcat post, or maybe it's so dumb that nobody bothered to refute me, but I'll say it again because I'm curious as to how others view it.

Is it fair to call it an "assassination" when the target was a soldier? I realize he wielded a far greater role in strategic decision making than any of our generals are capable of wielding, but I just see it as fundamentally different than killing a purely political official. Yes, there are significantly greater ramifications than the killing of a grunt, but (I think?) that's an entirely separate debate. Maybe I'm just being nitpicky, but calling it an assassination seems inaccurate. To use my prior analogy, wouldn't we expect the Iranian/international response to be significantly worse if we had done the exact same thing to the Iranian President? All indications are that he was less powerful than Soleimani, but it seems to me like that would be a much more clear act of war.

Am I making any sense? Or do I just sound like a crazy person? Not sure why this point is annoying me so much.

Imagine if Iran killed one of our generals or perhaps the CIA Director or somebody like Pompeo in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Or even just the top CIA official in Afghanistan.  Straight up killed him, announced it on twitter, bragged about it.  Said he was planning attacks in the region on Iranian interests.

We wouldn't have three days of mourning while deciding what to do.

[Js1 85131]

I wonder why Trump just decided to- 

oh

 

[atomheartbevo 89457]

3 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

Man, I'm a little surprised at the reactions in here.  This guy was a terrible human, had organized and was organizing more killings of Americans, orchestrated all kinds of shit in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, etc, helped organize Iranian proxy terrorist attacks all over the globe, and had just organized this 'spontaneous' attack on the Embassy and 95% of the people in here are pissed off because the assumption is there was no planning, forethought, or concern for repercussions.  Trump is no neocon and he will not send 100k plus troops or whatever we had in Iraq.  Iran overplayed, and has been overplaying, their hand and Soleimani was the head of the military command.  This 3 days of mourning is buying time to figure out a response that will allow them to save face.  While Dotard does not appear to have any strategic plan, the Iranians do.  They will play out all scenarios and come to the same conclusion. They would lose and lose badly and now they know we can and will target leadership.

It was mostly Saudi hijackers who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11.  A lot of Saudis killed a lot of Americans in Afghanistan, backed by Saudi money.  A lot of Saudis, or their proxies, killed a lot of Americans in Iraq, backed by Saudi money, during the Saudis proxy war with Iran after we invaded in 2003.  A lot of Saudis and Saudi money destabilized Iraq in the course of that proxy war, leading to more American deaths.  The Saudi government had Khashoggi, an American resident, killed and cut up in a Saudi embassy in Turkey.  The various extremist Wahhabist schools in Saudi Arabia export resources (people, money, etc.) around the globe that have attacked American interests, and are still doing it.

If we are going to start playing around with killing upper management who is helping to organize attacks on American interests, then we need to start talking about the Sunnis as well.

[Brisketexan 104661]

13 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Surly you aren’t suggesting because they were unsuccessful in breaching the inner embassy and killing additional Americans that this response was not warranted, right?  

Ummm, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  Actually, I'm outright saying it.  There are actions they could have taken to successfully breach the walls (notice the lack of car bombs, etc.?).  They did not use them.  The protest was a measured and, believe it or not, restrained assault on the embassy.  No, it wasn't a "good thing," or anything like that.  But it was not an all-out assault.

I mean, if you want to call it an act of war, then do so, but don't be a pussy about it.  Fucking bomb Tehran.  No half measures like that pussy Obama would do.

Or would that be disproportionate?  Because, oh, I don't know....proportionate responses matter?

[Brisketexan 104661]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

It was mostly Saudi hijackers who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11.  A lot of Saudis killed a lot of Americans in Afghanistan, backed by Saudi money.  A lot of Saudis, or their proxies, killed a lot of Americans in Iraq, backed by Saudi money, during the Saudis proxy war with Iran after we invaded in 2003.  A lot of Saudis and Saudi money destabilized Iraq in the course of that proxy war, leading to more American deaths.  The Saudi government had Khashoggi, an American resident, killed and cut up in a Saudi embassy in Turkey.  The various extremist Wahhabist schools in Saudi Arabia export resources (people, money, etc.) around the globe that have attacked American interests, and are still doing it.

If we are going to start playing around with killing upper management who is helping to organize attacks on American interests, then we need to start talking about the Sunnis as well.

Well, I mean, we WOULD, but.....

[Thetexashammer 1062]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  Actually, I'm outright saying it.  There are actions they could have taken to successfully breach the walls (notice the lack of car bombs, etc.?).  They did not use them.  The protest was a measured and, believe it or not, restrained assault on the embassy.  No, it wasn't a "good thing," or anything like that.  But it was not an all-out assault.

I mean, if you want to call it an act of war, then do so, but don't be a pussy about it.  Fucking bomb Tehran.  No half measures like that pussy Obama would do.

Or would that be disproportionate?  Because, oh, I don't know....proportionate responses matter?

It was an attempt to kill or capture everyone in the embassy. Most of them were noncombatants, which is why Suleimani is a terrorist. It was an act of war. Killing Suleimani, the general who planned and executed the attack and had a long history of killing noncombatants, was entirely warranted and his death should be celebrated.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[BurntOrange&White 39675]

In case you hadn't heard
 

Wow I can’t believe it

[washparkhorn 9935]

Sulemani was not taken out because of the Embassy protests. He was taken out for the rocket attacks in December. His ticket was canceled before the Embassy protests. 

[Brisketexan 104661]

It was an attempt to kill or capture everyone in the embassy.

It was? Huh. Interesting. So, is every violent protest that smashes shit at an embassy “an attempt to kill or capture EVERYONE IN THE EMBASSY?” Please, do tell. Because we’ve seen both things. What makes this an attempt to kill or capture everyone inside?

And I mean, if it was...don’t you think that just waxing this one dude is a pretty weak response? I mean, you yourself said it’s “an act of war.” Seems that would merit a much greater response. Shit, we’ve invaded countries for less.

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

You can debate all day and night about what this means but really all you need to know is that trump made the decision to kill that guy so it was clearly obviously the wrong one that will greatly harm the country and was done to benefit solely the self interest of trump. 

[atomheartbevo 89457]

[Thetexashammer 1062]

So, everyone understood before this happened that we were about to attack Iran, right? I knew it. Pompeo said it. 

Iran is detaining freighters in the Persian Gulf, including a British Naval vessel. They attacked refineries in Saudi Arabia. They bombed our base in Iraq. They shot down our drone. Then they attacked our embassy.

Trump pulled back on his earlier cruise missile attack. Iran kept going with their nonsense. Something had to be done. Iran must stop doing what they are doing. If they keep it up, they will be attacked again and in a more serious manner but without any boots on the ground.

The Iranian government is in a very bad place right now. There were protests recently that Reuters states have kill 1500.  Iran had to shut down the internet. Their economy is in shambles thanks to American led sanctions. The protests started after the government was forced to raise prices for gasoline (AKA their are having budget problems). 8 days ago they again curtailed the internet after more protests.

If you think these are just the same old protests again, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_Iranian_protests

Quote

The government killed 1,500 Iranian citizens.^[11][30][31] The government crackdown prompted a violent reaction from protesters who destroyed 731 government banks including Iran's central bank, nine Islamic religious centres, tore down anti-American billboards, and posters and statues of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. 50 government military bases were also attacked by protesters. This series of protests have been categorized as the most violent and severe since the rise of Iran's Islamic Republic in 1979.^[32][33][28]

I know they are saying that the goal isn't regime change, but I think it is. The Iranian government is in no position to start shit with anyone, especially a war they would lose in a matter of minutes.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[SubliminalHorn 6679]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Love to be an anti-government conservative who immediately believes everything the government says without evidence

How confused the simple trumpkins must be right now. The government is run by the deep state, except for this. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

So, everyone understood before this happened that we were about to attack Iran, right? I knew it. Pompeo said it. 

Iran is detaining freighters in the Persian Gulf, including a British Naval vessel. They attacked refineries in Saudi Arabia. They bombed our base in Iraq. They shot down our drone. Then they attacked our embassy.

Trump pulled back on his earlier cruise missile attack. Iran kept going with their nonsense. Something had to be done. Iran must stop doing what they are doing. If they keep it up, they will be attacked again and in a more serious manner but without any boots on the ground.

The Iranian government is in a very bad place right now. There were protests recently that Reuters states have kill 1500.  Iran had to shut down the internet. Their economy is in shambles thanks to American led sanctions. The protests started after the government was forced to raise prices for gasoline (AKA their are having budget problems). 8 days ago they again curtailed the internet after more protests.

If you think these are just the same old protests again, they're not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_Iranian_protests

I know they are saying that the goal isn't regime change, but I think it is. The Iranian government is in no position to start shit with anyone, especially a war they would lose in a matter of minutes.

I don’t get it. Why is someone so obviously dumb posting on this board? I mean what’s the point? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

Part of me thinks this ends up being just another flair up in a never ending cycle of escalations and de-escalations.   

However, war is unpredictable and Trump is the kind of idiot that would get us in war by accident and blame the democrats. 

[atomheartbevo 89457]

8 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I know they are saying that the goal isn't regime change, but I think it is. The Iranian government is in no position to start shit with anyone, especially a war they would lose in a matter of minutes.

So if the Iranian government has their backs against the wall, the logical course of action is to give them something to rally the country around to their side.

Or things continue to worsen for them, so they decide "fuck it, if the Americans are killing our generals, let's take everybody down".

If we want to hurt them/push regime change, then continue with the sanctions, and funnel resources into the anti-government protestors in Iran.  Maybe smuggle some of their younger leaders out and put them in front of microphones and cameras.  Maybe run up some towers in Iraq and Afghanistan to beam the internet and various tv and radio transmissions to Iranians along the borders.

[Js1 85131]

 

[GRHorn 105]

3 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

Rather than a picture you should've posted something more on brand. 

Like this "Look guys, babysdaddy is right.  the middle east just needs our leadership and help killing some of the bad guys then it will all be peaceful.  They just need us to help them realize democracy is the best and the only way to do that is to drop some bombs."

He’s slipping a little bit. 

[Anastasis 23398]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Part of me thinks this ends up being just another flair up in a never ending cycle of escalations and de-escalations.   

Mission of escalating intermittent violence with no plan. Sounds like American ME foreign policy in a nutshell. 

 

 

[Aqua Buddha 14525]

 

[bad_teammate 13133]

8 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

This take sucks so much ass.

The people who suffer the economic strangulation are the poor and working classes who have no power to influence whatever policies we're mad about. Being proud of the Obama administration for its sanctions regimes is neolib bullshit. Drone strikes and economic terrorism.

But at least he wasn't an embarrassing Cheeto Dummy on Twitter!!!!!!!!!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23362]

9 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

Yeah, Russia was so contained they subverted our democracy with a weaponized moron.  

Sorry, but Obama’s approach to Russia was a catastrophic failure due to indecisions and hubris.  The Magnitsky Sanctions, which his administration was ambivalent on, was his best achievement when it came to Russia. 

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, don't get me wrong...President Fuckstick is going to exacerbate every possible angle of American foreign policy.  But it's not like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea were just chilling on ice for the last 25 years.  I don't care how you vote, the last 4 U.S. Presidents were absolute shitshows of foreign policy.  Though they were domestic trainwrecks, Nixon-Carter-Reagan run circles around the last 4 dipshits (and I consider Clinton to be a good Domestic president).  

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

So if the Iranian government has their backs against the wall, the logical course of action is to give them something to rally the country around to their side.

Or things continue to worsen for them, so they decide "fuck it, if the Americans are killing our generals, let's take everybody down".

If we want to hurt them/push regime change, then continue with the sanctions, and funnel resources into the anti-government protestors in Iran.  Maybe smuggle some of their younger leaders out and put them in front of microphones and cameras.  Maybe run up some towers in Iraq and Afghanistan to beam the internet and various tv and radio transmissions to Iranians along the borders.

I don't think there's going to be a change in regime. I do think it's more likely now than it has been since 1979. And I think that's an important part of the context. It's not been reported in our media to any real extent.

Yes, patriots rally around the flag, right up until they don't. i read a poll once that the Iranian government had a 13% approval rating. I'm not sure that in the process of having a mob destroy the state banking system and attack the 50 military bases you're going to see a lot of rallying around the flag. The goal of the protestors is to topple the government, they hate the mullahs and starting wars than bankrupt the country isn't likely to increase the government's support.

I think there are 13% of Iranians who genuinely want to destroy the Big Satan and hte Little Satan. I think those "patriots" are massively outnumbered by people who just want to live their lives.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Thetexashammer