Iraqi militiamen breach U.S. embassy

[twocoach]

B. No shit. But again, spraying a hornet's nest because one stung you has consequences, even if the hornet "deserved it".

Yes. And not spraying it has consequences as well.

Agreed. We have made a decision between two unpleasant choices. Now we just have to cross our fingers and hope that it doesnt result in more American deaths. I am not optimistic that will be the case.

And I hope our President isnt tried for war crimes for preemptively murdering this guy and 6-7 others because of what he might do in the future.

[japhy]

i tHinK tRUMp iS an IRaniAN aSseT!

trump isn't even a trump asset, he is mostly a liability.

[seahawk]

i tHinK tRUMp iS an IRaniAN aSseT!

Trump is a Putin asset. The question might be what does Putin gain out of this? Having spent a good deal of my life living in oil states, I always look to where the Oil $$$ will flow. Does this mean an immediate hike in oil prices that eases Putin's economy?

Also, there've been demonstrations against the Iranian government, the people getting a little touchy. We know that Putin, from his early background in Germany, has a great fear of mobs and rowdy crowds of the citizenry. What could be better than to unite the Iranian people against a great foe?

And we know that Donald does whatever Putin says.

[Geezer]

We'll just have to wait and see what the Iranian response will be.

[Geezer]

Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are having good days on the street.

[seahawk]

Why would he be untouchable on Iranian soil? We have admitted to targeting him and killing him. I doubt the Iranians are thinking "well, we're OK with this since it didnt happen in Iran".

Untouchable because it's a far more complicated operation to take someone out in their home territory-- that would require more planning. Trump could never go with more than just his gut impulse for the day, even when he wasn't in dementia. Any observer in any country knows that.

That kind of planning would also mean that it would be more likely there'd be a link to the Iranian rival who set Soleimani up. Much easier to have the Americans take him out on foreign soil, then stand back and make noise about the satanic Americans.

[DCHawk1]

We'll just have to wait and see what the Iranian response will be.

This is a truism.

[seahawk]

[twocoach]

Why would he be untouchable on Iranian soil? We have admitted to targeting him and killing him. I doubt the Iranians are thinking "well, we're OK with this since it didnt happen in Iran".

Untouchable because it's a far more complicated operation to take someone out in their home territory-- that would require more planning. Trump could never go with more than just his gut impulse for the day, even when he wasn't in dementia. Any observer in any country knows that.

That kind of planning would also mean that it would be more likely there'd be a link to the Iranian rival who set Soleimani up. Much easier to have the Americans take him out on foreign soil, then stand back and make noise about the satanic Americans.

I would think you could sell the satanic Americans angle more if it was on home soil, with some dead collateral damage Iranian civilians throw in.

[ousdahl]

When the resident pro-life guy gloats about how someone’s death is an UNALLOYED good, lulz

Thread:

Too bad no one got to him while he wuz still a fetus?

[Shirley]

Trump ftw!

[defixione]

Nostratrumpus

[DCHawk1]

When the resident pro-life guy gloats about how someone’s death is an UNALLOYED good, lulz

Thread:

Too bad no one got to him while he wuz still a fetus?

You shoulda stayed either a Catholic or a law student long enough to know the difference.

[DCHawk1]

I think this, from David Goldman probably sums it up well:

US President Donald Trump’s decision to humiliate Iran with the assassination of a national hero on Jan. 2 is a calculated gamble and probably represents the best of a set of bad alternatives....

Without attempting to read the minds of Iran’s leaders, one may conjecture that Iran badly needed a moral victory to show that it was not cowed by massive Israeli airstrikes in Syria, nor, indeed, by a deteriorating economy at home. In November, the Iranian regime ruthlessly suppressed anti-regime protests, killing up to 1,000 demonstrators. After the US struck five bases of Iran-backed militias in Iraq on Dec. 30, Iran decided that its credibility required a demonstration of power, and ordered the attack on the US embassy.

That left Trump with few good choices. After 5,000 dead, 50,000 wounded and trillions of dollars in expenditures in Iraq, the US had succeeded in turning a former counterweight to Iranian ambitions into an Iranian satrapy. The embassy attack was intended by Iran as a public act of ritual humiliation, and the United States had no choice but to respond. Trump chose to respond by subjecting Iran to an even more poignant form of humiliation, by assassinating a national hero, Gen. Qassam Sulemaini. It is easy to criticize the US president, but harder to recommend an alternative course of action. US airpower has limited effectiveness in constraining the diffuse Iranian-backed militias.

Neither Iran nor the US has good choices here. Iran must respond or its credibility will collapse. The question is how. An Iranian attack on an American ally like Israel or Saudi Arabia would not suffice, now that Washington has acted in its own name against a key Iranian leader. The indicated course of action is to attack an American asset. In the extreme case, Iran could use a combination of intermediate-range missiles, cruise missiles and drones to attack the Doha base.

And you'll note here that Goldman lays ultimate blame where it rightly belongs, on the Bush administration's shoulders.

[twocoach]

And now 3,000 more US troops are to be deployed to the Middle East. I hope they all make it back home.

[Deleted User 89]

Didnt we leave our allies to die in Syria because we wanted to get out of this whole mess and get our troops home and weren't GOP voters in full support of that?

So now GOP voters are in full support of assassinating an Iranian official while killing 6 others as collateral damage in likely violation of international human rights laws while sending thousands of additional US troops to the region?!? What in the actual fuck?

THIS is a perfect response: totally devoid of fact, ignorant of background, and completely emotional.

We have troops in Iraq. They are there because they were sent there by...wait for it...Barack Obama.

Of the roughly 5000 American forces in Iraq, 3500 were sent by Obama to help restore stability and defend the government against ISIS (after he removed the bulk of US troops in 2010 and 2011). Trump removed 1000 troops from Syria and you spent the next several weeks shitting little rings around yourself. He hasn't removed troops from Iraq and now you're shitting little rings around yourself because he's chosen to defend them against aggression from a foreign state.

Separate and distinct from the question of whether or not the killing of Soleimani was the best military move at this point, you people are fucking insane, driven completely nuts by your hatred of Trump.

why only mention Obama?

how many troops did dubya send?

(don’t answer, i already checked)

[DCHawk1]

And now 3,000 more US troops are to be deployed to the Middle East. I hope they all make it back home.

Me too.

[DCHawk1]

Didnt we leave our allies to die in Syria because we wanted to get out of this whole mess and get our troops home and weren't GOP voters in full support of that?

So now GOP voters are in full support of assassinating an Iranian official while killing 6 others as collateral damage in likely violation of international human rights laws while sending thousands of additional US troops to the region?!? What in the actual fuck?

THIS is a perfect response: totally devoid of fact, ignorant of background, and completely emotional.

We have troops in Iraq. They are there because they were sent there by...wait for it...Barack Obama.

Of the roughly 5000 American forces in Iraq, 3500 were sent by Obama to help restore stability and defend the government against ISIS (after he removed the bulk of US troops in 2010 and 2011). Trump removed 1000 troops from Syria and you spent the next several weeks shitting little rings around yourself. He hasn't removed troops from Iraq and now you're shitting little rings around yourself because he's chosen to defend them against aggression from a foreign state.

Separate and distinct from the question of whether or not the killing of Soleimani was the best military move at this point, you people are fucking insane, driven completely nuts by your hatred of Trump.

why only mention Obama?

how many troops did dubya send?

(don’t answer, i already checked)

Why only mention Obama? Because he sent the troops that are there now?

AFTER he withdrew the troops Bush sent?

If you bother to keep reading, you'll see this sentence: "And you'll note here that Goldman lays ultimate blame where it rightly belongs, on the Bush administration's shoulders."

Thanks for playing?

[Geezer]

Not hard to mine the Strait of Hormuz.

[DCHawk1]

So...yer saying we should do that?