Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump got another one...
#1
Iran's Qassem Soleimani killed in US airstrike at Baghdad airport

[Image: 83e440b9e425a58d89c66b09a033b31d13dbfd4d...a5439e.jpg]


We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Islamic regime in Iran.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#2
MMEGA: Make Middle east Great Again

Everybody loves so much the americans in the M-E that a new deployment of US forces would be much welcome. They are so sad without you! Because the reason for living is to fight and die in the M-E.

I hope Trump won't order a troop deployment. But he may tweet another stupid thing or two.

I hope the guys who took this decision knew what they were doing. It can be a good thing or a very bad thing.
A good thing if it really slows Iranian efforts to control Iraq and the M-E.
A very bad thing if Iranian capacity to respond has been underestimated and they decide send more armed forces to the region.
That was playing with fire.
Reply
#3
And Why didn't Trump kill Grand Ayatollah directly?
Junior took Saddam, Obama took Bin Laden, himself, he already took al-Baghdadi... why with Iran everybody must be shy?
Reply
#4
Good news, a drone attack killed many more terrorists today.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#5
[Image: image-8.png?w=664&ssl=1]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#6
(01-03-2020, 09:22 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: Good news, a drone attack killed many more terrorists today.
Unfortunately not 
But now that they started it, they shouldn't stop.

Twitter Wrote:Shibl Al Zaydi tweets to confirm he is alive: https://t.co/bGhpZiEKiS


It's weird that the mourning procession went through the Green Zone.  Soleimani and Muhandis are being buried in Iraq as Iraqi war heroes. At the same time The US is training Iraqi forces...

Bad news for Trump, however:
reuters Wrote:Clinton ordered four days of bombing on Iraq in 1998 as he was facing an impeachment vote in the House. Those airstrikes delayed the vote, but did not prevent it.
link
Reply
#7
(01-04-2020, 03:57 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Bad news for Trump, however:
reuters Wrote:Clinton ordered four days of bombing on Iraq in 1998 as he was facing an impeachment vote in the House. Those airstrikes delayed the vote, but did not prevent it.
link

Are you saying that "The Donald" is doing this in order to help with the upcoming election?  From what the news has been stating, this "Impeachment" scam has increased his popularity anyway. 

Perhaps this should be in the "Jackasses Being Jackasses" thread.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#8
John L, No I didn't think about that (But maybe this should belong to the Middle East discussion group?). A journalist wrote this remark at the end of his article and I found it funny. In case Trump hoped it could divert the attention. S5
I don't think Trump did it to slow the impeachment trial because it's not him who ordered the attack. Trump didn't know who Soleimani was until being asked to sign the assassination order. It was a decision taken by (in order of importance) Israel, the Pentagon, the Saudis, Sunni Iraqi leaders and maybe Kurds too.

I think killing these commanders was a good thing because Iran was gaining too much power in the region and especially in Iraq.

As expected shiite Iraqis calls for an end to foreign troops.
That won't be a bad thing anyway because there are still 4000 US troops too may in Iraq. Trump seemed to be willing to disengage from that place. Why are there still US forces in the thousands?
The goal in killing Soleimani was to allow locals to counter Iran without the help of the US. Leaving US troops there exposed to Iranian retaliation would be useless.


Quds Commander Soleimani Wrote:I’ve come to say hello and have a chat

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah Wrote:this was a beautiful start to the Gregorian new year
S26 S22
Hezbollah leader Nasrallah Wrote:there is great focus on you in the American media, press and magazines and they’re printing your pictures on the front page as ‘the irreplaceable general’, this is media and political priming for your assassination
I hope so, pray for me.  S24
link
Reply
#9
(01-05-2020, 03:01 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: I think killing these commanders was a good thing because Iran was gaining too much power in the region and especially in Iraq.

As expected shiite Iraqis calls for an end to foreign troops.
That won't be a bad thing anyway because there are still 4000 US troops too may in Iraq. Trump seemed to be willing to disengage from that place. Why are there still US forces in the thousands?
The goal in killing Soleimani was to allow locals to counter Iran without the help of the US. Leaving US troops there exposed to Iranian retaliation would be useless.

US troops will not be leaving Kurdistan any time soon.  That includes Iraq and parts of Syria.  The Kurds are our staunchest allies, right behind Israel.  In fact there are a large number of Israelis with the Kurds, teaching them to defend and fight successfully. 

I'm not sure when, but perhaps soon, they will be declaring themselves independent Kurdistan, and also include parts of Syria, Iran and even Turkey, as well as Iraq.  I wish them all the luck. They richly deserve it after all they have had to endure for over the last 150 years.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#10
John L, Trump has already abandoned the Kurds and it's final. Turkey invaded Kurdistan the next day. Then the Kurds had no other choice but to ally with Assad, the least of the two evils.
The remaining troops in Iraq are in central Iraq.

3500 US troops are going to be deployed in the M-E in addition to the 16500 US troops already deployed (4500 in Iraq).
One of the most important, if not the most important, Trump's election promise was to bring bacl a;; the GI's and military personal back home and get out of endless wars.
Yet, another promise he won't hold. Maybe he didn't want it, but by or against his will, he has been dragged into a war with Iran. And not only: He also talks about sanction on Iraq.

The risk of escalation is very high. There are still hopes, Iran will make a calculated response. They Persian. They play the long term chess game very successfully, several steps ahead. Arabs and Americans are the opposite: They rush into action and don't speculate about what could happen. That's how the US invaded Iraq: A blitzkrieg followed by years of chaos and total loss of control. The name of the thread "Trump's Blizkrieg" is spot on. Trump, even more than Junior or Bill Clinton, see actions as starting and finishing a job in one shot.

If you think the Iranian regime is on the brink of collapse: Look at this first. It's staggering.
The largest rally since the burial of the Islamic Revolution Founder Ayatolah Ali Khameini 30 years ago.



This assassination has united Iran. Even people opposed to the regime attended. Because he was considered as a man who fought for the iranian nation. As a hero who fought and defeated ISIS. It must be noted that the US has abundantly collaborated with Soleimani in the war against ISIS. Now they kill him.

Two other consequences: Trump's economic sanctions against Iran were somehow effective. Slow but effective. Iran had fewer financial ressources to support its economy and domestic discontent was growing.
Now Iran is in state of war and the population feels an urge to unite against an agressor. This is something that Trump couldn't foresee. But that's what the hawks among his advisors had hoped for. To start a military war with Iran.

The other consequence is that Iran is now going back to full speed with their nuclear program. Good luck for Trump to stop it.
So far Iran has been very moderate with breaching the agreement because if Trump withdrew from it, the other powers (France, Germany, Russia) didn't and they were still bound to respect it somehow. They had increased refining above authorized levels, but rather symbolically. They also have modernized their installations, which is less symbolical.
Now they have decided that there won't be any limitation whatsoever. They took the decision yesterday at a emergency meeting of the parliament. Their first official act in reaction to the assassination.
Experts estimate that Iran could build their first nuke in as soon as one year from the time they restart their program at full capacity.  S23

Here is a very interesting video from the Young Turks TV. (US based Turkish Nationalists, I think). Not really allies of Iran.
They don't question the killing of Soleimani itself, but the way Trump, and also Pompeo, communicate with the american public and how they lie to you. You can kill Soleimani. But then, don't pretend you made the world safer for american citizens because you didn't. It also put Israelis and any european looking person in jeopardy too in this region.
Just look:


In this other video from the TYT, they show who Trump didn't know soleimani, but pretended to. Jesus Christ! He couldn't even make the difference between the Kurds and the Quds. You can misheard the two words. But not when you are told about Soleimani in the first place. It means Trump thought Soleimani was a Kurd commander because he understood the word Kurds instead of Quds. Probably that he  never heard the word Quds before this interview.

Reply
#11
Here are two other interviews with experts on the iranian question. What they say gives a good over view of the real situation.


Reply
#12
Thomas Carl Hartmann is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator. Wikipedia

Your so-called expert is a biased progressive.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#13
(01-06-2020, 06:53 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...Yet, another promise he won't hold.

...Experts estimate that Iran could build their first nuke in as soon as one year from the time they restart their program at full capacity. 

It is self-denigrating to laugh at what Trump has followed through with. Name another world leader as honorable with his pledges as Trump has been.

Another mention of "experts" finding fault with Trump is not worth too much. After all, with Obama's treaty, he guaranteed that Iran could build nuclear weapons with full American alpproval in a number of years. Possibly within this decade. Trump's "red line" is that Iran will Never get a nuke.
Reply
#14
canucklehead Wrote:Your so-called expert is a biased progressive.
Sorry the expert is not the presenter, but the person who is interviewed.

WmLambert Wrote:After all, with Obama's treaty, he guaranteed that Iran could build nuclear weapons with full American alpproval in a number of years. Possibly within this decade. Trump's "red line" is that Iran will Never get a nuke.
That's curious. As soon as the US respected the nuclear treaty agreement with Iran signed by Oabama, Iran almost stopped their program. Enrichments enever exceeded 3% and inspections were made frequently.
This made impossible for Iran to build a nuke, neither within a decade or ever.

Since Trump withdrew from the agreement, Iran increased enrichment levels and made inspections more difficult.
Since Soleimani's death,, enrichment will be unlimited. Because of Trump, Iran can build a nuke, not within ten years, but within one year.
Of course under the pressure of France, Russia and Germany, they may not do it, but fact is, that they could.

Facts show exactly the opposite of what you say.

If Trump's red line is that iran never get nukes... well... he is very far from his red line.

Trump also planned to send a man to Mars during his mandate.
Reply
#15
(01-07-2020, 04:02 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ...Sorry the expert is not the presenter, but the person who is interviewed.


Not so. As the media has proved over the last decade and a half, how they spin bits and pieces of interviews totally distorts the basis of any interview, and is largely disinformational.

(01-07-2020, 04:02 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: ....Iran almost stopped their program. Enrichments never exceeded 3% and inspections were made frequently.
This made impossible for Iran to build a nuke, neither within a decade or ever.Trump also planned to send a man to Mars during his mandate.

You are depending on disinformation. Iran did not allow full inspections, and has created multiple undisclosed nuclear enrichment sites. They maintained their nuke program on the down-low - but never stopped. With the money that Obama gave them, they could purchase a nuke from North Korea or Russian whenever they wanted to. Trump's ramped up sanctions forced them to use that money on quelling national unrest, instead. The entire intel community said Iran was on the path to nuclear warheads and delivery systems within a much shorter time than reported. The bunker-buster bombs we loaned to Israel took out some sites when they were too far along, but the Democrat anti-Trumpers would rather see an armed Iran than give Trump credit for doing his job.
Reply
#16
Fred, normally I agree with you on most things,.........but here, you are waaaaaaaay out in Left Field, and I totally disagree.  For too long, the Deep State goons have failed to do what they should have been doing.  And I still don't personally like the man, but respect his moral courage to do what others lack the Moral Courage to do.  And for every Deep State Jackass and Dumbass out there, there are far more who will say "Right On!"

Total Schiff-Heads, one and all.
  S18

Quote:The Schiff("head") Effect: Dems’ chickens come home to roost in lack of Soleimani consultation
by JEFFREY LORD

It was September 2019.

The headline in the Washington Examiner concerned this from former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy. The headline:

Trey Gowdy: ‘Partisan’ Adam Schiff scares off access to confidential information

The story said, in part, this:


Quote:“When you put someone who is wrong as often as Adam Schiff is wrong and is as deeply partisan as he is, in charge of the intelligence committee, then no, you’re not going to share confidential information because Adam leaks like a sieve,” Gowdy said.

Trey Gowdy got it right. And with the refusal of the Trump administration to “consult” with congressional Democrats, Schiff prominently included, the chickens have come home to roost.

A furious Speaker Nancy Pelosi bitterly complained that “this action was taken without the consultation of the Congress.”

In a priceless post, conservative author, filmmaker, and ex-Reagan aide Dinesh D’Souza said this of Democrat Senate Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer’s complaint about not being consulted:Neither were the Iranians, and for pretty much the same reason.

Well aside from the humor, in fact D’Souza’s comment was clearly, if sadly, on point.

As Gowdy noted, time after time after time, Schiff and other House Democrats leaked — in partisan fashion — confidential information that should never have been slipped to their buddies in the media.

All targeted to attack the president. And in so doing, what could be called “the Schiff Effect” created for the Democrats in both the House and Senate a seriously bad reputation for not being trustworthy with the handling of confidential information. It is, as D’Souza was alluding, almost the same as leaking the information directly to the Iranians themselves.

Add to this image the rabid Trump Derangement Syndrome among Democrats, which has them literally siding with the murderous Iranian regime over the president.

An appalled former Sen. Joe Lieberman, the longtime Democratic senator from Connecticut and 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to blister his party. Lieberman said this, bold print supplied:


Quote:President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.

The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.

Lieberman went on to say this:

Quote:After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president.

Exactly. But the sad thing here is that one suspects many of today’s Democrats have no idea who Arthur Vandenberg was, not to mention that they would doubtless scorn his “politics stops at the water’s edge” mantra.

All of this is hurting Democrats. As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said, all of this rabid, crazed anti-Trumpism is not merely doing incredible damage to the Democratic Party, but it is also fueling a surge of millions of dollars into the Trump campaign from angry Americans.

Or, put another way, the Schiff Effect has not only done serious damage to his party’s reputation for handling secret information — it is also helping to do the one thing his party says they are determined to prevent.

That would be reelecting Donald Trump.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#17
Had the Trump Administration consulted with congressional Democrats at least a half dozen would have tipped off the Iranians.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#18
(01-07-2020, 07:24 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: Had the Trump Administration consulted with congressional Democrats at least a half dozen would have tipped off the Iranians.

BINGO!!

Who the hell do those Jackasses think we really are?! S18
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#19
Iran is firing at US bases in retaliation of the US's retaliation.  Its currently live on Fox News.

https://watchnewslive.tv/fox-news-live-stream-usa/

BREAKING: Multiple Missiles Fired From Inside Iran At Multiple Bases, Targets Inside Iraq, Reports Say

Iran launches missiles into US air base in Iraq
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Reply
#20
That ought to piss off Trump. He should have the NSA completely shut down the Iranian power system, and then attack and wipe out the Quds Force.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)