RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:What a stupid fucking cunt. Casually ordering a strike from a golf club for fuck knows what reason. Every decision he makes worsens the situation. Come on America, the whole world wants you to reign this thundering idiot in. At least have the decency to take his social media taunts out of the picture until an adult can try and deal with this state of affairs. Its beyond ridiculous.

The BBC's Newsnight did a great job covering this. There's nothing like asking the RAND Corp for an unbiased opinion on an assassination by the US military.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So much for disengaging.

Someone needs to explain strategy to this dickhead. If you are going to leave, then do so. If you intend to keep troops over there then don't state that you are going to walk away as that makes you look weak and invites attack. Have clear strategy for f*cks sake.

This is obviously supposed to be a 'don't mess with us message' to the Iranians. Yet its a confusing one given the other messages he and his administration have given on the future of American involvement in the region. Whilst a bit of confusion can be a good thing, this is confusing everyone continually. Iran will probably provide more resources to those militias who want to take on the Americans. More Americans will be killed. Trump then either escalates or walks away. What are the odds that he hasn't thought that through?

FB_IMG_1578057056911.jpg

Idiot as Trump is, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand wartime Presidents get reelected. This is very deliberate.

Puja

Yup. Let’s just hope he has a longer term vision in mind. I doubt it but I’d live to be pleasantly surprised for once.

This is purely to gain patriotic points from the masses and discredit the impeachment.

When the trial starts in the senate, all the GOP senators will be waxing lyrical about what a great American Trump is and how he is strong, decisive and has saved the world.

There will be no direct defence to the actual charges because they all know he has no defence. Everything the GOP has done, and is doing is all about bigging Trump up. Killing an evil general from an evil country is the perfect coup for Trump.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.

Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.

I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:

Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.

I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I don't doubt his decision making process is for shit, but apart from anything else I can't imagine anyone knows how Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia and so on will respond, but it's entirely possible it'll be in a fashion that doesn't promote Trump as he'd want.

WaspInWales wrote:

Digby wrote:I've no idea whether this works, or whether this works for Trump. It'd be hard enough if not impossible to judge at the best of times, but given he has no values one can be guided by, has no coherent narrative around what he wants to happen, doesn't talk to his allies about potential actions and even carries out the attack in the nation of a supposed/sort of ally it's a tricky read, and that before we see what the Iranians do.

I think many are reading way too much into his actions. I think it's entirely down to self-preservation. I don't think he came up with the idea though. Those who are loyal to him and want to continue the status quo probably advised that a strike is likely to boost his appeal to the dark skin fearing patriots, as well as make it easier for the GOP senators to spin the impeachment trial as a Democrats Vs America narrative.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Given the sheer number of times he said that Obama was going to do precisely this to stir up opinion at home - he didn't need anyone to suggest the idea.
Details? Yes, but notnthe "launch an attack on Iran"

What is the point trying to analyze anything this spunk basket does? He has no idea what is going on around him. He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason. This is so far beyond him. Right now he is standing at the omelette bar at a golf club struggling to settle on salmon or bacon, or both.

I for one have no problem pairing salmon and bacon

Looking at the Twitter response, it seems to have whipped up a nationalistic/patriotic frenzy.

What impeachment???

The man is a hero

morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.

Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.

That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.

Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.

That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.

There are no doubt many people the world would be better off without (I know very little about Suleimani, so don't know if he falls into this category), but can you not see the manner of his removal is the problem here? That his removal by assassination is likely to escalate the situation and cause further violence, possibly on a very large scale? And has legitimised* the assassination of any US military personnel abroad? And what, anyway, is the likelihood that he'll be replaced by someone "better"?

* Not in a legal sense, but in that it would be no worse than what the USA has done.

Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Tarzan was nuanced, christ Murray Mexted is more nuanced

Digby wrote:Tarzan was nuanced, christ Murray Mexted is more nuanced

Mexted has a far greater grasp of metaphor , albeit in a “Carry on Coming inside the first five” sort of a way.

The thing is...has Iran got anything to back their rhetoric up?

If they have, why haven't they done it?

If they haven't, it kinda plays into Trump's hands, as they can't do anything so Trump claims the win, and the patriots are happy.

If Iran do anything local, it's gonna be limited and unlikely to have any real effect, but still being open to retaliation from the US.

There's only one winner here.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

One winner?

Iran could spend the next few months shutting down air travel, then the banks, then emergency services, then...

We could lose whilst winning, worse we could lose whilst a fat orange man is claiming a win

morepork wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Nice to see that Trump is threatening to breach the Geneva Convention, International Humanitarian Law and even the US Department of Defence's own Law of War manual.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Nice to see that Trump is threatening to breach the Geneva Convention, International Humanitarian Law and even the US Department of Defence's own Law of War manual.

Word.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.

Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.

That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.

I've got issues with countries deciding to assassinate people as of a general principle - we're supposed to be the good guys, the ones who abide by the rules of law and international diplomacy and don't just off people we don't like - but that's almost by-the-by here. To misquote Macbeth, if it were to be done, then twere well it were done *quietly*. Who in their right mind murders a national hero and then sends out a press release crowing about it?! If he absolutely must die for the safety of the US, then send out their equivalent of the SAS and have it done without attention.

All the Donster has done here is prop up the Iranian government and promote a fervid spirit of anti-Americanism that'll last way beyond any influence Suleimani would have had on the region.

Puja

Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Puja wrote:I've got issues with countries deciding to assassinate people as of a general principle - we're supposed to be the good guys, the ones who abide by the rules of law and international diplomacy and don't just off people we don't like - but that's almost by-the-by here. To misquote Macbeth, if it were to be done, then twere well it were done *quietly*. Who in their right mind murders a national hero and then sends out a press release crowing about it?! If he absolutely must die for the safety of the US, then send out their equivalent of the SAS and have it done without attention.

All the Donster has done here is prop up the Iranian government and promote a fervid spirit of anti-Americanism that'll last way beyond any influence Suleimani would have had on the region.

Puja

I absolutely agree that this should have been done without the crowing, indeed I would argue that to have achieved such a clinical strike, it would have had a far greater deterrent impact to have said nothing and merely left every bad bloke on the planet wondering when and from where their own RV with a reaper might arise. Trump is a twat, but by the same measure so too were most of his predecessors. Obama wasted little time going public on the killing of Bin Laden and while he was a little more reserved than the current eejit, the announcement generated similar levels of national gloat in the US and gave rise to a short-term threat that was considerably broader than that posed by a living Bin Laden. (It made for a good film, though)

I do not agree that there was any doubt as to the legitimacy of striking against an individual who was engaged in planning and conducting attacks against American citizens.

Digby wrote:Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Two of those killed along with Suleimani were senior commanders of the al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī, an umbrella group for several Iraqi state-sponsored and Iranian-backed militias. This highlights just how completely fecked-up the situation is in Iraq. On the one hand you have the legitimately constituted armed forces which continue to be trained by America (Training that is supported by around 400 UK troops), on the other you have an Iraqi government pouring funding into a group of Iranian-backed militias while, as yet, failing to take any effective steps to integrate them into the constituted armed forces. They remain an Iranian puppet army in Iraq and have been accused of a catalogue of sectarian war crimes against Sunnis.

One of those killed, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the deputy commander of al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī and was serving under a death sentence handed down by a Kuwaiti court for his involvement in a bombing campaign in the 1980s. He was elected to the interim government in Baghdad after Saddam was booted out, but legged it to Iran when the Americans found out who he was. He was one of the principal organisers of the attack on the US embassy on New Years Eve following the funerals of some of his Hez militiamen (Killed by American airstrikes in response to an attack in Kirkuk which killed one and wounded four Americans). It is interesting that during the disturbances, a graffiti was sprayed on the Embassy wall stating, "Suleimani is our leader."

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Digby wrote:Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Two of those killed along with Suleimani were senior commanders of the al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī, an umbrella group for several Iraqi state-sponsored and Iranian-backed militias. This highlights just how completely fecked-up the situation is in Iraq. On the one hand you have the legitimately constituted armed forces which continue to be trained by America (Training that is supported by around 400 UK troops), on the other you have an Iraqi government pouring funding into a group of Iranian-backed militias while, as yet, failing to take any effective steps to integrate them into the constituted armed forces. They remain an Iranian puppet army in Iraq and have been accused of a catalogue of sectarian war crimes against Sunnis.

One of those killed, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the deputy commander of al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī and was serving under a death sentence handed down by a Kuwaiti court for his involvement in a bombing campaign in the 1980s. He was elected to the interim government in Baghdad after Saddam was booted out, but legged it to Iran when the Americans found out who he was. He was one of the principal organisers of the attack on the US embassy on New Years Eve following the funerals of some of his Hez militiamen (Killed by American airstrikes in response to an attack in Kirkuk which killed one and wounded four Americans). It is interesting that during the disturbances, a graffiti was sprayed on the Embassy wall stating, "Suleimani is our leader."

Just the three to go then.

I'm broadly on the fence, though It would have been better for mine if they hadn't made the strike whilst Suleimanei was visiting a foreign sovereign nation and one that's some sort of ally. And I really think they should be talking to countries like the UK in advance, we could well be in the process of sending in extra ships/troops or moving assets to/around the ME and suddenly we're presented with a very different security outlook