Manic Moran wrote: » With regards to Soleimani, a question I can't seem to find a specific answer to is what the Iraqi government's position was with this guy. As Tulsi said in the interview above, nobody questions that he was an evil man (Well, outside of Iran and its proxies) responsible for the majority of American deaths in the country, and I don't think anyone is advocating that he was in Iraq for the common good. His convoy was from Hashd al-Shaabi, the same guys in the news recently for causing trouble at the embassy. Did he have Iraqi permission to be in the country, or was he snuck in? If he had permission, the airstrike seems questionable. If not, then I don't see why the Iranians have any particular cause to complain. Gabbard calls the strike an act of war, but foreign military personnel in your country without permission to orchestrate violence also strikes me as such. CNN's national security analyst did a piece a couple days ago on the recent strikes. https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/opinions/airstrikes-iran-trump-doctrine-bergen/index.htmlTaken together, these examples indicate the administration has developed a set of principles when it comes to conflict with Iran or its proxies. Trump will not carry out military operations against Iran for attacks against unnamed American drones. He will also not respond when a close ally such as Saudi Arabia suffers significant attacks on the key node of its economy. Trump will, however, respond militarily when Americans are killed or wounded by Iran or its proxy forces. If Iran takes the same message as a CNN analyst managed to read, I don't see things escalating particularly further on the international level. I do see an increase in activity from the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, however.
RobertKK wrote: » It was said on CNN that the group Soleimani was said to be orchestrating in Iraq was formed originally to fight ISIS in Iraq. It was also said on CNN that Iraq could well order the US to get out of their country for committing this assassination on their territory without their permission.
Manic Moran wrote: » Both of which are true as far as it goes, but neither of which addresses the question I posed of his presence in the country this week and the Iraqi attitude to it. Disapproval of the strike by Iraq or a past confluence of convenience does not necessarily equate to the legitimacy of the Iranian general parlaying with a militia in Iraq in early 2020.
blackcard wrote: » Was there not a senior Iraqi army person killed alongside him which would indicate that he was there with Iraqi approval?
Harry Palmr wrote: » Got to hand it to Trump, he's reunited the Iranian leadership with it's people in one moment! Wonder how long until the President is looking for help from Boris Johnson (in exchange for something trade deal related).
Manic Moran wrote: » With regards to Soleimani, a questionTaken together, these examples indicate the administration has developed a set of principles when it comes to conflict with Iran or its proxies. Trump will not carry out military operations against Iran for attacks against unnamed American drones. He will also not respond when a close ally such as Saudi Arabia suffers significant attacks on the key node of its economy. Trump will, however, respond militarily when Americans are killed or wounded by Iran or its proxy forces. If Iran takes the same message as a CNN analyst managed to read, I don't see things escalating particularly further on the international level. I do see an increase in activity from the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, however.
RobertKK wrote: » The Obama administration were sleeping on the job as I said. Maybe if they had been aware that Russia was a threat, the Ukraine war might not have happened, the reset button three years earlier also showed Clinton was asleep and only gave a reset button as she thought they were weak. If Russia had been viewed as being strong she would not have done it. Obama was too busy riling up a narcissist that he would never be in the white house like he was, another thing he got wrong. Too busy with the Hollywood celebs and Beyonce, too busy with people waving their small American flags when he came to Ireland. A blind eye turned by so many to what was just another poor president in a long line of bad presidents. Clinton asleep as Al Qaeda attacked US interests including embassies and the USS Cole, fired a few missiles at some training camp and that was it. The migrant crisis happened under Obama as he and the west supported the wrong side which led to ISIS. The best thing about the Obama administration was the Iran deal, and that is also the biggest mistake of the Trump administration. Though Hillary Clinton did threaten to go to war with Iran...https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal-distrust-and-verify/ "“Iran should understand,” she said, that “the United States—and I as president—will not stand by as our Gulf allies and partners are threatened. We will act."
RobertKK wrote: » The Obama administration were sleeping on the job as I said.
Obama was too busy riling up a narcissist that he would never be in the white house like he was, another thing he got wrong.
Too busy with the Hollywood celebs and Beyonce, too busy with people waving their small American flags when he came to Ireland.
A blind eye turned by so many to what was just another poor president in a long line of bad presidents.
Clinton asleep as Al Qaeda attacked US interests including embassies and the USS Cole, fired a few missiles at some training camp and that was it. The migrant crisis happened under Obama as he and the west supported the wrong side which led to ISIS.
The best thing about the Obama administration was the Iran deal, and that is also the biggest mistake of the Trump administration. Though Hillary Clinton did threaten to go to war with Iran...https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal-distrust-and-verify/ "“Iran should understand,” she said, that “the United States—and I as president—will not stand by as our Gulf allies and partners are threatened. We will act."
duploelabs wrote: » Except Dominic Raab said "further conflict is in none of our interests."
everlast75 wrote: » Sorry. Did you say Obama was too busy winding up a narcissist... Everybody in the room was winding him up. If you're implying Obama is now to blame for Trump, well on this we won't ever agree as it utter nonsense. Obama's administration may have gotten certain things wrong, but to suggest that his admin is comparable in any way, shape or form in terms of incompetence to 45's is so far beyond ridiculous. Obama was respected on the world stage. Trump was literally laughed at by the UN.
Igotadose wrote: » Utter fatuous nonsense. Unlike the current crime syndicate in the WH (9 top members of this administration or senior campaign advisers/policy consultants convicted of crimes, most in jail,) the Obama admin tried to work with the nutter GOP congress, for example in Syria, where if you can recall Obama asked for Congressional authorization to attack Syria and was refused (just like the UK.) Who the *heck* are you talking about, Trump? Do you seriously think citizen Trump was on Obama's radar before the GOP primary campaign started, where for months his candidacy was a joke? Get over yourself, you're slagging Democrats because of your forced-birth agenda, it's the only reason you spout obvious nonsense about Trump and the GOP not being the party of warmongery (Iraq via fake WMDs under GWB. Vietnam. Grenada.) Jaysus, Obama derangement syndrome in its finest form. Hollywood. Right. On his 'hollywood night' of the correspondents dinner, he oversaw Bin Laden being killed. Hollywood. What a stupid joke Anti-choice venom flowing through yet again. Farcical. Support Morsi? Qaddafi? Heck, why not Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin while we're at it. Aha. As always with the anti-choice GOP filchers, 'but, but Hillary' when their 'ideas' are shown to be the rubbish they are.
sid waddell wrote: » The US already has a president in the pocket of Russia, not sure why you'd want another one.
listermint wrote: » But yes , let's search for legitimate reasons to assassinate one countries senior leadership in another sovereign state....
Manic Moran wrote: » If they're attacking you and killing your soldiers, that's plenty legitimate enough reason. That doesn't make the method legitimate. The question I have, which, still, nobody has answered and does not seem to be in the news, is what his status was in Iraq. He wasn't over for a vacation and a chinwag over tea about the old times. Was he there with the permission of the Iraqi government? If not, then we have the case of a foreign government's military personnel operating in an allied country without permission. That becomes a legitimate military target.
everlast75 wrote: » He frequently visited Baghdad. The gang of eight was not advised in advance of this action. Lindsey Graham however was advised when he was visiting Mar a lago days ago. There was no approval by congress. There was no consultation with any of the US allies.
drunkmonkey wrote: » You don't signal a manoeuvre!
RobertKK wrote: » They are all useless, just some put on rose tinted glasses because one is blue or red. They are all war mongers and have all caused great harm in the Middle East. You turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Democrat presidents including Obama when either Republican or Democrat they all have a lot of blood on their hands. Just some choose to ignore the blood the Democrats have on their hands when Republicans and Democrats are all stained with blood through wars, drones and other actions that has killed millions of people at this stage.
everlast75 wrote: » The rationalizing of this guy's behaviour is truly disturbing.
