Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread

[wildcat09 29556]

Given the way this administration has handled this story, I’m coming around to the idea that the target was actually Al Muhandis and we didn’t even know Soleimani was with him. 

[Satchel 6982]

10 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's been said before, but you should check the dates. Do you have anything that trumps November 2019?

Anything after May, 2018 is after the fact.

[staboner 5067]

On 1/3/2020 at 1:55 PM, Anastasis said:

I for one would feel a bit better if @staboner would regale us with a no nuke/no dirty bomb Friday right about now. 

you know I got you my homie. Friday was awesome. I was outta pocket actually, which means I was actually double outta pocket. Meaning I was at the beach chilling and do beach shit.

asshole orders killing of asshole. *peers into self to find feelings and can't find them*

I like sand. Here's to a full no nuke weekend. Lets keep sand sand. Ya'll be cool and have a great Saturday

Edited January 4, 2020 by staboner

[BradInATX 9208]

Republicans... most of their base is like me.

One of the most accurate things you've ever posted.

[Macanudo 13254]

There are people who play chess and people who play checkers.  And then there's Republicans who are the kids  eating glue. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

Earnest question, and I'm not really familiar with this writer, but I am familiar with Dick Cheney- Is Iran really responsible for the deaths of 600 U.S. troops?

 

https://truthout.org/articles/lies-about-iran-killing-us-troops-in-iraq-are-a-ploy-to-justify-war/

[4th&Five 41904]

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

@Thetexashammer’s position is that Trump was left with no other choice but to strike back at Iran. It ignores the fact that he was stuck in that position due to his own decisions. He was hellbent on dismantling a signature achievement of his predecessor (something that the entire international community agrees was achieving the results Trump desires) and was certain his genius and dealmaking ability would achieve a much greater deal.

That belief was, of course, dead wrong. It put Iran back on the path to a bomb, created more instability in the ME which has led to the deaths of more people and now has Trump doing something he promised he wouldn’t do: send more troops to the Middle East in preparation for yet another winless war.

and @Thetexashammer, a self-professed anti-war Republican, loves all of it. You see, he’s a real patriot. The rest of you are spineless appeasers.

[Enchubben 5598]

32 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Earnest question, and I'm not really familiar with this writer, but I am familiar with Dick Cheney- Is Iran really responsible for the deaths of 600 U.S. troops?

 

https://truthout.org/articles/lies-about-iran-killing-us-troops-in-iraq-are-a-ploy-to-justify-war/

I haven’t seen anything that directly supports the number, I’m guessing it was based on some sort of projection or estimation. 
 

That article seems to paint those deaths (or attacks) as a result of Hezbollah and not Iran. However, Iran funds, and otherwise supports Hezbollah and has been shown to participate in attacks with Hezbollah against US forces. I’m sure it would be difficult to pin down a direct number.

[Francisco 2.0 32543]

And now, a word from The President:

 

 

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20834]

Iran is going to respond.  They've been setting the table for 35 years.  There is a broad array of U.S. targets/interests in the region.  The September attack against the Saudis was a demonstration that the Iranians can hit what they want when they want to.  They might go after the naval station in Bahrain or the air base in Qatar. Both are easily within missile range. 

 

[maninblack 7975]

From 2015. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/iranian-gen-qasem-soleimani-guiding-iraqi-forces-fight-against-isis-n321496

Edited January 4, 2020 by maninblack

[maninblack 7975]

Yesterday's bombing may not have hit it's intended target

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/01/03/iraq-reports-us-airstrike-hit-convoy-of-medics-north-of-baghdad/

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Earnest question, and I'm not really familiar with this writer, but I am familiar with Dick Cheney- Is Iran really responsible for the deaths of 600 U.S. troops?

 

https://truthout.org/articles/lies-about-iran-killing-us-troops-in-iraq-are-a-ploy-to-justify-war/

I don't know, but based on that article about Soleimani in The New Yorker I think they might be counting all the way back to the marine barracks bombing in Beirut in the 80's when Reagan was president. 

[Tuco 5093]

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

[Js1 86939]

13 minutes ago, Tuco said:

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

What, you think we’re so innocent? 

or

Everyone does -- kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me

[bolverk 30230]

Questions: If, as many expect, Iraq's parliament votes to expel US forces from their territory, a) how will Trump respond, and b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

In addition to my "just asking questions," we should also keep in mind that there remains the continuing threat of Iranian retaliation occurring during any of the above scenarios.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear the hivemind's thoughts. tia

[atomheartbevo 90546]

 

[Chad Fuck 18090]

And now, a word from The President:
 
 
 

One for every occasion!

[Js1 86939]

18 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Her daughter is 4

[Incredulity 11861]

Saved Barack’s son too.

 

Iran isn’t going to do shit except piss down their leg.

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Saved Barack’s son too.

 

Iran isn’t going to do shit except piss down their leg.

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

[Enchubben 5598]

7 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

I’m hoping they will randomly select my wife but not me. 

[Incredulity 11861]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

22 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

So, no, you won’t sign up. Gotcha. 

[bolverk 30230]

29 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

Cite comparable examples meeting the following conditions where we a) are not already in direct armed conflict to b) use US Armed Forces to c) unilaterally kill a military leader of a foreign country.

The closest I can come up with is the bombing on Qaddafi's house in direct response to the downing of the plane over Lockerbie or the attempt on Saddam just before Iraq War 2.0 (both by Republicans btw). The rest might be CIA type of shit from the Cold War.

[Incredulity 11861]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Cite comparable examples meeting the following conditions where we a) are not already in direct armed conflict to b) use US Armed Forces to c) unilaterally kill a military leader of a foreign country.

The closest I can come up with is the bombing on Qaddafi's house in direct response to the downing of the plane over Lockerbie or the attempt on Saddam just before Iraq War 2.0 (both by Republicans btw). The rest might be CIA type of shit from the Cold War.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-airstrike-impeachment/

[GRHorn 105]

After reflecting a bit since the killing I generally agree with Tucker’s thoughts here. Our interests aren’t clearly served by escalation with Iran. Also, lol at Brian Stetler suddenly citing him. 

 

That said, I find it a bit disingenuous when people like PsychoBrisket dismiss the Embassy protest and other provocations. They didn’t breach the interior, guys. 

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/world/2020/01/02/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq-damaged-after-pro-iranian-militia-attack/2793991001/

The bottom line is these are tough calls to make, and there’s a reason this thread isn’t called the Middle East Thread of Brief Disputes Easily Resolved by Binary Decision Making. 

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

Dude, it’s a war crime to kill American troops fighting in a foreign country. Enemy soldiers are supposed to lay down and die lest they be branded terrorists. 

[maninblack 7975]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Questions: If, as many expect, Iraq's parliament votes to expel US forces from their territory, a) how will Trump respond, and b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

In addition to my "just asking questions," we should also keep in mind that there remains the continuing threat of Iranian retaliation occurring during any of the above scenarios.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear the hivemind's thoughts. tia

a) how will Trump respond?

You're guess is as good as anyone's. He's got neocons in both parties that love war that will push for escalation all around him. He could also say fuck you guys and leave.

b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Abso-fucking-lutely. The vast majority of rationale people would celebrate leaving. Of course they'll be political posturing on either side in the media and on message boards but getting the fuck out of the middle East is the right move.

c) Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

Massive relief. The middle East was "lost" long before Trump but some people would probably paint it as his failure for political reasons.

[immamac 44199]

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

[bolverk 30230]

13 minutes ago, maninblack said:

a) how will Trump respond?

You're guess is as good as anyone's. He's got neocons in both parties that love war that will push for escalation all around him. He could also say fuck you guys and leave.

b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Abso-fucking-lutely. The vast majority of rationale people would celebrate leaving. Of course they'll be political posturing on either side in the media and on message boards but getting the fuck out of the middle East is the right move.

c) Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

Massive relief. The middle East was "lost" long before Trump but some people would probably paint it as his failure for political reasons.

Thanks for responding.

[maninblack 7975]

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

That'd be a horrible decision as well. Remember this cunt

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by maninblack

[bolverk 30230]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

I can't possibly see him abandoning bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain nor him turning his back on corporate backers from the domestic fossil fuel industry.

[maninblack 7975]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I can't possibly see him abandoning bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain nor him turning his back on corporate backers from the domestic fossil fuel industry.

Yeah that'd never happen unless there's some kind of massive global economic shift.

[Goredho 17627]

Our brave soldiers on the ground react...

[tchookem 3965]

And now, a word from The President:
 
 
 

It's like Inception except he's incepting his future self while sitting on the shitter.

[David Dennison 19441]

17 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

We'll never leave the ME as long as China and Russia exist.

[Brisketexan 106618]

After reflecting a bit since the killing I generally agree with Tucker’s thoughts here. Our interests aren’t clearly served by escalation with Iran. Also, lol at Brian Stetler suddenly citing him. 

 

[/url] That said, I find it a bit disingenuous when people like PsychoBrisket dismiss the Embassy protest and other provocations. They didn’t breach the interior, guys. 

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/world/2020/01/02/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq-damaged-after-pro-iranian-militia-attack/2793991001/

The bottom line is these are tough calls to make, and there’s a reason this thread isn’t called the Middle East Thread of Brief Disputes Easily Resolved by Binary Decision Making. 

Your bottom line is all that matters. They are tough calls. With complicated strategic implications and scenario-gaming involved. Every move prompts hundreds of potential countermoves. Chess was fucking invented in Persia - it’s a damned complicated region with shifting alliances and interests. Do you have any confidence that Dotard is aware of any of those, much less considered them?

 

Don’t make a move unless you’ve got your next several moves planned, based on the most likely anticipated responses. Dotard has done none of that, and you know it. That’s the goddamned problem here. It’s bad enough when we have people making strategic decisions based on bad assumptions. It’s worse when we have a man making them on NO assumptions.

[Walser 1125]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your bottom line is all that matters. They are tough calls. With complicated strategic implications and scenario-gaming involved. Every move prompts hundreds of potential countermoves. Chess was fucking invented in Persia - it’s a damned complicated region with shifting alliances and interests. Do you have any confidence that Dotard is aware of any of those, much less considered them?

 

Don’t make a move unless you’ve got your next several moves planned, based on the most likely anticipated responses. Dotard has done none of that, and you know it. That’s the goddamned problem here. It’s bad enough when we have people making strategic decisions based on bad assumptions. It’s worse when we have a man making them on NO assumptions.

Maybe not. Him making random moves might be better than him making moves on bad assumptions.

I'll take a roll of the dice over this any day.

[maninblack 7975]

It'll get worse until we're gone.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

After reflecting a bit since the killing I generally agree with Tucker’s thoughts here. Our interests aren’t clearly served by escalation with Iran. Also, lol at Brian Stetler suddenly citing him. 

 

That said, I find it a bit disingenuous when people like PsychoBrisket dismiss the Embassy protest and other provocations. They didn’t breach the interior, guys. 

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/world/2020/01/02/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq-damaged-after-pro-iranian-militia-attack/2793991001/

The bottom line is these are tough calls to make, and there’s a reason this thread isn’t called the Middle East Thread of Brief Disputes Easily Resolved by Binary Decision Making. 

No no no. You can not ignore that we are in this cycle of escalation because Trump decide to trash an accord that was actually deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This wasn’t some unavoidable situation where Trump was forced to respond. He alone created this situation.

[maninblack 7975]

 

[maninblack 7975]

 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

17 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No no no. You can not ignore that we are in this cycle of escalation because Trump decide to trash an accord that was actually deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This wasn’t some unavoidable situation where Trump was forced to respond. He alone created this situation.

Correct

[maninblack 7975]

Germany apparently sending a small force of soldiers to Northern Iraq

[maninblack 7975]

They knew they were starting this

 

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, maninblack said:

They knew they were starting this

 

We started it in 1953.

[Blotto 23974]

15 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Yeah sorry about that. Here's something more current. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/watchdog-irans-violations-nuclear-deal-increasing-66913829

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-iran-nuclear-deal-20191111-p3n3xid3oramvg67gvkvigismq-story.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-announces-more-violations-of-nuclear-deal-with-new-centrifuges/

https://www.ajc.com/news/watchdog-iran-violations-nuclear-deal-increasing/2eXuoN5qPzukAz63sIXobM/

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-11-11/atomic-watchdog-irans-stockpiles-of-uranium-still-growing

https://www.ksl.com/article/46671641/un-reports-increasing-violations-of-iran-nuclear-deal

They were found to be violating the agreement but our media didn't want to play it up. The centrifuges are spinning ad infinitum. 

 

1.) Claims the US media won't report on Iran's nuclear agreement violations, then posts 6 links, of which  5 are from the US.

2.) Did you read the articles you linked? Iran is not denying that they are in violation of the JCPOA, instead claiming that they started violating the agreement once Trump pulled his bitch fit and pulled out of the agreement agreed upon by Obama. Why the fuck should they agree to anything if the end result is additional economic sanctions being imposed because Trump hates Obama?

Quote

 

Iran has been open about its violations of the deal in recent months, announcing the moves before making them and allowing the IAEA to verify them.

Speaking at a U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador, Eshagh Al Habib, insisted that his country's moves are all "reversable."

They provide "opportunity for remaining JCPOA participants either to take serious practical steps to preserve the JCPOA or, along with the U.S., accept the full responsibility for any possible consequences," he said.

 

Have any links that discuss Iran's noncompliance between 2013 when the agreement was signed and mid 2018 when the US abandoned the agreement and added additional economic sanctions? The IAEA seemed to think they were in compliance. 

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-11-30/iaea-reports-yet-again-irans-compliance-jcpoa

So keep sucking Trump's cock (while pretending you don't like sucking Trump's cock) and see how wonderfully things end in Iran. 

[Incredulity 11861]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We started it in 1953.