The Anti-Benghazi

[GoranZ]

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes...

How do you juxtapose those two statements as if they were opposites? Since when is it a crime to meet with your allies? By that logic, every time an American general goes to London to consult with the British, he should be shot.

Of course he was in Baghdad to meet with his allies. In what universe is that a crime?

Soleimani should had a official meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi later that day.

The Prime Minister revealed that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani the same morning the general was killed in an airstrike in Baghdad. According to Abdul Mahdi, the Iranian general was expected to deliver a response from Iran to 'a Saudi message'.

Iraqi Parliament Votes to End Foreign Military Presence, Scrap US-Led Coalition Agreement

[jonesthecurl]

Trump through a bone to the media and they salivated. Everyone knows this except the media.

Trump's inauguration for example. It was a million people but trump said it was 5 or 10 million. The media fact checkers go crazy as if trump doesn't know what the answer to 1+1 is. This is the same. Doesn't trump know culture like targets are off limits? Yes he does. He always takes his statements up 5 or 10 levels. The media goes nuts.

In baseball and football the coach sometimes calls plays or formations just to see how the other team reacts. If the other team burns a timeout you are out thinking them.

Mind-blowing that you think it's legitimate for an elected official to deliberately lie, and then compare it to a game.

I was taught that lying is one of the gravest crimes there is. Maybe they don't teach that in your country.

Even if lying is not one of the gravest crimes in the general sense, it's definitely one of the gravest crimes when done by an elected official. An elected official is entrusted with the government of his people, all his people, not just the ones that voted for him. He might lie on the campaign trail, while he's still one among equals, but once elected he's in a special position of trust and any abuse of that trust is a moral outrage.

Hmm, didn't that one president get impeached for lying?

[HitRed]

Duke, Where is the moral outrage? If 100% can all see? It doesn't exist except on one side. That's politics. I'll let you know when it is real.

Hint, when a farmer in the middle of a crop field is upset then it is real.

[mrswdk]

mrswdk likes to make sweeping claims and I cannot stand by and let these sweeping (and false) claims go unchallenged.
I’m just pointing out to him that he needs to be a bit more precise.

Having recently been the victim of similarly ridiculous nitpicking by someone else, I have to point out that it's ridiculous nitpicking. How many times have you said, "people hate Justin Bieber" when, in fact, you know damn well that only 98% of people hate Justin Bieber? This is the kind of semantic hair-splitting that people engage in when they have nothing substantive to say.

Thanks Duk

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes...

How do you juxtapose those two statements as if they were opposites? Since when is it a crime to meet with your allies? By that logic, every time an American general goes to London to consult with the British, he should be shot.

Of course he was in Baghdad to meet with his allies. In what universe is that a crime?

Because CNN said he's a bad dude!

Yes, he was a military leader in an active conflict zone. Helping the Shiite people of Iraq defend themselves against genocidal Sunni groups like ISIS and al-Queada. In what universe is that a crime?

Since the U.S. won't do anything to help them survive, the least it can do is stay the f*ck out of the way and let them get help wherever they can get it.

It is interesting how the US has stepped up from simply abandoning its allies in the fight against IS to now actively attacking them. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, does that mean Trump is now friends with IS?

[saxitoxin]

It is interesting how the US has stepped up from simply abandoning its allies in the fight against IS to now actively attacking them. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, does that mean Trump is now friends with IS?

IS was defeated by Trump already. Baghdadi is dead and all IS territory has been captured. Mopping up its remnants is now a law enforcement operation. We now turn our attention to Iran and Denmark.

Our alliances are transactional arrangements of temporary convenience not spiritual billion year contracts. Those are the exact instructions the Founder left.

... establishing conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

We allied with France to defeat Britain in 1783 and then went to war against France immediately afterwards. We were allies with Britain in Samoa and then realigned with Germany when they made a better offer. We supported Mexican independence and then annexed half their territory. We were allies with Japan in 1920 and, 25 years later, vaporized two of their cities. This has always been how this works, and anyone who hasn't realized this after 250 years deserves defeat. We are very transparent about our playbook. It's not our fault if the world is populated by dummies and morons who keep walking straight back into our jaws.

Imagine being a vegetarian and yet cows keep committing suicide on a barbecue in your backyard. What are you supposed to do?

[riskllama]

[mrswdk]

It is interesting how the US has stepped up from simply abandoning its allies in the fight against IS to now actively attacking them. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, does that mean Trump is now friends with IS?

IS was defeated by Trump already.

Five months after American-backed forces ousted the Islamic State from its last shard of territory in Syria, the terrorist group is gathering new strength, conducting guerrilla attacks across Iraq and Syria, retooling its financial networks and targeting new recruits at an allied-run tent camp, American and Iraqi military and intelligence officers said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... fghanistan

Our alliances are transactional arrangements of temporary convenience not spiritual billion year contracts. Those are the exact instructions the Founder left.

Not prepared to wait five minutes after the supposed defeat of IS to start slaughtering all the people who fought alongside you against them, but are prepared to let the words of a document written 300 years ago dictate all US policy from now into eternity?

[jimboston]

Having recently been the victim of similarly ridiculous nitpicking by someone else, I have to point out that it's ridiculous nitpicking. How many times have you said, "people hate Justin Bieber" when, in fact, you know damn well that only 98% of people hate Justin Bieber? This is the kind of semantic hair-splitting that people engage in when they have nothing substantive to say.

OK. I do understand what you are saying... but your example is extreme.

I agree I’m nitpicking a bit... but the fact is that one UN Official is not the same as the universal condemnation that mrswdk implies. I further suggest that most condemnation I hear is politically motivated, and that long term condemnation will be mostly dependent on the retaliation (or lack thereof) from Iran. If there’s minimal or no real retaliation this will be looked on as a “win” by many.

Furthermore, when I say “people hate Justin Bieber” I’m technically correct because I don’t consider ’Beliebers” to be homo-sapien given that their IQ’s are clearly and demonstrably below the norm.

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes...

How do you juxtapose those two statements as if they were opposites? Since when is it a crime to meet with your allies? By that logic, every time an American general goes to London to consult with the British, he should be shot.

Of course he was in Baghdad to meet with his allies. In what universe is that a crime?

If he’s there meeting with his allies, in what is essentially an active war theater... and if those allies are our obvious enemies...

Then yes... he’s actively engaged in the conflict.

Since the U.S. won't do anything to help them survive, the least it can do is stay the f*ck out of the way and let them get help wherever they can get it.

Yet it’s a coincidence he’s there at the same time our embassy is besieged by the very groups he supports?

[mrswdk]

If he’s there meeting with his allies, in what is essentially an active war theater... and if those allies are our obvious enemies...

Then yes... he’s actively engaged in the conflict.

I see you missed the post earlier in this thread that said Soleimani was due to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister later on the same day he was assassinated.

"I was supposed to meet Soleimani at the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi to Iran" the Iraqi PM said, highlighting that Soleimani was carrying a response from Iran to a Saudi initiative to diffuse tensions in the region. That came after Trump called the Iraqi PM and asked him to mediate.

https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/iraqi- ... d-20200105

[jimboston]

If he’s there meeting with his allies, in what is essentially an active war theater... and if those allies are our obvious enemies...

Then yes... he’s actively engaged in the conflict.

I see you missed the post earlier in this thread that said Soleimani was due to meet the Iraqi Prime Minister later on the same day he was assassinated.

"I was supposed to meet Soleimani at the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi to Iran" the Iraqi PM said, highlighting that Soleimani was carrying a response from Iran to a Saudi initiative to diffuse tensions in the region. That came after Trump called the Iraqi PM and asked him to mediate.

https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/iraqi- ... d-20200105

Nope... I didn’t miss it.

He likely was there to do that...

... but you don’t necessarily send a military leader to deliver a political message.

... and that doesn’t mean that’s THE ONLY reason he was there.

You don’t seem to believe US Official Government statements... so why do you. have no problem believing Iranian Official Government statements without any question?

His presence has ultimately raised tensions in the region, so it seems to me like it was a bad idea to send him. Maybe Iran should have realized what his presence in the region would look like at the same time the US Embassy was under attack? Maybe they should’ve reconsidered their plans in light of the situation on the ground.

[Dukasaur]

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes...[/quote

How do you juxtapose those two statements as if they were opposites? Since when is it a crime to meet with your allies? By that logic, every time an American general goes to London to consult with the British, he should be shot.

Of course he was in Baghdad to meet with his allies. In what universe is that a crime?

If he’s there meeting with his allies, in what is essentially an active war theater... and if those allies are our obvious enemies...

Then yes... he’s actively engaged in the conflict.

They are not your obvious enemies.

Leaving aside the fact that you're fighting undeclared proxy wars against the Shiites in Yemen, the Shiites in Iraq have been your de facto allies. It's not exactly a warm and fuzzy relationship, but there has been more co-operation than opposition. The Shiites in Iraq have been, as noted a few time already in this thread, de facto allies of the west against al-Quaeda and ISIS. Perhaps more importantly, they have been propping up the Iraqi state, which allowed the American withdrawal from Iraq. The modern state of Iraq began its existence as a puppet regime of the American military, and many observers expected it to collapse the day the Americans left. That collapse never happened, largely because the Shiites have supported the government's legitimacy, and they have a genuine desire to see stable government take root.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/21/what-iranian-and-iraqi-shiites-think-a-new-survey-of-thousands-of-pilgrims/

— Respondents, on average, expressed neutral attitudes toward the United States and preferred minimal involvement of the United States in Middle Eastern affairs. Respondents saw the United States as favoring traditional Shiite enemies, while treating Shiite allies unfairly.

— The majority of individuals stated that they viewed the United States’ role in conflicts throughout the Middle East as having “no effect” and stated neutral attitudes toward the United States as a whole.

— Over 75 percent of Iranians and Iraqis got the majority of their information from TV.

— About half of Iranians and Iraqis got their news from the internet at least a few times a month. Skype, WhatsApp, and Viber were popular online applications in both Iran and Iraq. Iraqis were prolific users of YouTube and Facebook.

— Three quarters of respondents in Iraq and Iran believed that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and 60 percent of Iranians and 63 percent of Iraqis believed that university education was equally important for men and women (difference significant at the 0.01 level). Almost all respondents believed that a woman should be able to choose whom she wanted to marry, with 95 percent of Iranians and 90 percent of Iraqis agreeing (difference significant at the 0.01 level).

— Respondents from both Iran and Iraq were extremely divided on issues of democracy and human rights, with about half of respondents in each country viewing different aspects of democracy at least somewhat negatively.

— 57 percent of Iranians argued that a lack of respect for human rights is justified for security purposes, as opposed to only 29 percent of Iraqis.

— Iranian respondents exhibited substantial faith in the current party and government system. Over 70 percent believed the current party was the best to lead Iran, more than half stated that they could criticize the government without fear, and over 60 percent saw the most recent elections as completely free and fair.

[/quote]

[mookiemcgee]

The murder of a foreign government official in an extrajudicial attack by the US Government. The boil is in urgent need of lancing. America will get its just desserts.

I’m not convinced either way here.

I want to know what the guy was doing in Iraq.

If he was on some official diplomatic then the killing (at this time) is probably unjustified.

If he was in Iraq meeting with militias/terrorists who operate in Iraq but are supported by Iran...

Well i this case he is essentially acting as the modern / 4th Gen Warfare equivalent of a battlefield commander in an active military zone... and he’s therefore a legitimate target.

So was the US ‘rash’ in hitting this guy... maybe... but if top military leaders didn’t think this was a good move they never would have presented it to Trump. Everyone is blaming Trump for being rash, and this may be true, but he’s not acting’s a bubble.

Really? Really Jim? God Bless America and all that stuff, but you are really on the fence about our president ordering the oversees assassination of a foreign leader from a country we aren't formally at war with? You really need to know what he was doing in a neighboring country before you can assign a moral judgement on this?

So if the highest ranking general of Mexico went to Guatemala you think America has 'every right' to attack him with hellfire missiles if they think (without submitting any evidence or proof to the US's allies or the media) that he might be at some point planning some kind of attack that might be against America...

Let me guess, you consider yourself anti-war too.

[saxitoxin]

Really? Really Jim? God Bless America and all that stuff, but you are really on the fence about our president ordering the oversees assassination of a foreign leader from a country we aren't formally at war with?

On the scale of bad, that's one-tenth as bad as our president ordering the assassination of an American citizen and his children, like Obama did. In Gen. S's case he didn't have a legal right to protection by the U.S. government so it is, at best, a grey area. Obama's assassination of Awlaki was a cut-and-dry crime. Not some philosophical war crime, but 1st Degree Murder under the Virginia criminal code. The crocodile tears from Iran's fifth columnists in the Democrats is merely hypocritical Trump Derangement Syndrome and can be dismissed with the wave of a hand.

If the Rats don't want to sleep in this bed, they shouldn't have been slobbering out their mouths, rictus smiles carved into their faces, as Obama was making it.

[saxitoxin]

It is interesting how the US has stepped up from simply abandoning its allies in the fight against IS to now actively attacking them. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, does that mean Trump is now friends with IS?

IS was defeated by Trump already.

Five months after American-backed forces ousted the Islamic State from its last shard of territory in Syria, the terrorist group is gathering new strength, conducting guerrilla attacks across Iraq and Syria, retooling its financial networks and targeting new recruits at an allied-run tent camp, American and Iraqi military and intelligence officers said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... fghanistan

Our alliances are transactional arrangements of temporary convenience not spiritual billion year contracts. Those are the exact instructions the Founder left.

Not prepared to wait five minutes after the supposed defeat of IS to start slaughtering all the people who fought alongside you against them, but are prepared to let the words of a document written 300 years ago dictate all US policy from now into eternity?

By my count, ISIS has killed 228 people in Europe and 1 person in the U.S. in the last 3.5 years. If they're a problem, they're not our problem. I'm sure the Danish Army can handle it.

[mookiemcgee]

Really? Really Jim? God Bless America and all that stuff, but you are really on the fence about our president ordering the oversees assassination of a foreign leader from a country we aren't formally at war with?

On the scale of bad, that's one-tenth as bad

See Jim, even Saxi agrees it's bad!

[jimboston]

The murder of a foreign government official in an extrajudicial attack by the US Government. The boil is in urgent need of lancing. America will get its just desserts.

I’m not convinced either way here.

I want to know what the guy was doing in Iraq.

If he was on some official diplomatic then the killing (at this time) is probably unjustified.

If he was in Iraq meeting with militias/terrorists who operate in Iraq but are supported by Iran...

Well i this case he is essentially acting as the modern / 4th Gen Warfare equivalent of a battlefield commander in an active military zone... and he’s therefore a legitimate target.

So was the US ‘rash’ in hitting this guy... maybe... but if top military leaders didn’t think this was a good move they never would have presented it to Trump. Everyone is blaming Trump for being rash, and this may be true, but he’s not acting’s a bubble.

Really? Really Jim? God Bless America and all that stuff, but you are really on the fence about our president ordering the oversees assassination of a foreign leader from a country we aren't formally at war with? You really need to know what he was doing in a neighboring country before you can assign a moral judgement on this?

So if the highest ranking general of Mexico went to Guatemala you think America has 'every right' to attack him with hellfire missiles if they think (without submitting any evidence or proof to the US's allies or the media) that he might be at some point planning some kind of attack that might be against America...

Let me guess, you consider yourself anti-war too.

Please find where I said “every right” to attack him... when you can’t i’ll expect acknowledgment from you that you are taking what I’m saying and going extreme. I’m trying to express nuance... and I’m not really saying it’s “right” or “wrong”... I’m saying it’s possibly justified and I’d like to hear more about the details and ‘why’ it might be justified.

nuance

[riskllama]

LOL...[YouTube]uj01U8l35OI?t=2m10s[/YouTube]

[mrswdk]

LOL...[YouTube]uj01U8l35OI?t=2m10s[/YouTube]

Fail.

[GoranZ]

LOL...

Fail.

Trump: "I believe he(Obama) will attack Iran sometime prior to the election because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected... Isn't it pathetic"

Now we know who is the pathetic one