Tango01 | 04 Jan 2020 9:35 p.m. PST |
"It's hard to overstate the geopolitical importance of Friday's assassination of Qassim Soleimani, architect of Iran's external military activity for more than 20 years and perhaps the most powerful man in the country after the Supreme Leader. For deep background on Maj. Gen. Soleimani and his importance in Iran's military activity across the Middle East, both direct and via numerous proxies, see this piece from the New Yorker: link Iran right now is reeling from the assassination, but the leadership is dominated by hardliners and the question is how, not whether, they will respond. For markets, the key issue is the impact of the Iranian response on oil prices…." Main page link They do not lost time……. link
Amicalement Armand
|
Thresher01 | 04 Jan 2020 10:10 p.m. PST |
"…..the leadership is dominated by hardliners….". It will be interesting to see if that remains the case for long. |
USAFpilot | 05 Jan 2020 8:46 a.m. PST |
Iran has been responding for the last 41 years. I would rather we pull out all together, but until we do there has to be a price paid for killing our fellow countrymen and assaulting our embassy. |
JMcCarroll | 05 Jan 2020 10:57 a.m. PST |
If Iran is looking to make the most of this. America's response is something they must think of. You can only poke the Tiger so many times. |
ochoin | 05 Jan 2020 12:41 p.m. PST |
And so it begins: link link Indeed, as my old Granny used to say, act in haste & repent at leisure (picture her saying this in a brogue but sans teeth). |
ochoin | 05 Jan 2020 12:45 p.m. PST |
And Democrat Chris Murphy sums up the price to be paid, sadly, well: link |
ochoin | 05 Jan 2020 12:52 p.m. PST |
You can only poke the Tiger so many times. And I sincerely hope not:
|
Tango01 | 05 Jan 2020 3:42 p.m. PST |
|
pzivh43 | 05 Jan 2020 4:04 p.m. PST |
So, if we had good intell that Suleimani was planning ops to strike at US personnel in Iraq, we should have just let it happen? Current administration has been measured in military response, despite increased Iranian provocations. |
Stryderg | 05 Jan 2020 5:59 p.m. PST |
Anyway, what actions could Iran take? 1 – Mining / interrupting traffic in the Persian Gulf 2 – Getting OPEC to raise oil prices 3 – Step up terror attacks against the US 4 – Getting other nations (probably using the UN) to impose sanctions against the US 5 – Strikes against US businesses overseas 6 – Strikes against Israel 7 – umm, that's all I can come up with. I don't see any of those working out too well except maybe 5. But the response from the US and others is just going t escalate. |
ochoin | 06 Jan 2020 3:51 a.m. PST |
I'm afraid that's wishful thinking, Stryderg. link |
USAFpilot | 06 Jan 2020 7:14 a.m. PST |
Pretty sure we live in a federal republic. The Constitution gives the President the sole authority to conduct foreign relations. |
USAFpilot | 06 Jan 2020 8:03 a.m. PST |
Here, enlighten yourself. link |
darthfozzywig | 06 Jan 2020 9:18 a.m. PST |
Iran was already expected to announce expanded nuclear enrichment prior to Soleimani's death--there's no surprise there. The Iraqi parliament is also largely controlled by Iran, so again, no surprise there. |
Au pas de Charge | 06 Jan 2020 12:07 p.m. PST |
Iraqi parliament is controlled by Iran. Okaaaaaay, then why arent the people protesting that they want the US to stay? |
mghFond | 06 Jan 2020 1:23 p.m. PST |
I read this morning that parliament is controlled by a Shiite majority which are pretty much in Iran's pocket but the Sunnis and Kurdish Parliament members did not show up because they did not wish to vote against the proposal. So yes I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqis who would like us to stay. |
USAFpilot | 06 Jan 2020 1:32 p.m. PST |
" 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," former Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) writes in The Wall Street Journal. A few of the most important points: During the Iraq War, Soleimani oversaw three camps that trained and equipped Iraqi militias. These fighters have killed more than 600 Americans since 2003. "Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict." "Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution." Lieberman says Democrats should leave partisan politics at "the water's edge" and "stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani." link
|
Thresher01 | 06 Jan 2020 3:28 p.m. PST |
"Okaaaaaay, then why arent the people protesting that they want the US to stay?". They are protesting in the streets that they want the Iranians out, both in Iran and Iraq, and many have been killed by their respective regimes, and/or political enforcers for that – many hundreds, if not thousands have been executed for daring to speak out against their leaders there. They turned off the internet to keep much of that from being reported both inside their countries, and to the outside world As pointed out by me and others, many in Iraq don't want to openly express their opinions in their country for the real fear of having themselves and their families killed by the radicals. It is a real shame that so many seem to be for the terrorists, an Iranian general who plotted and ordered the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, and are supportive of MS-13 gang members, and other criminals. Even talking heads appearing on CNN and MSNBC support the President's actions from the legal standpoint. Where were ALL the political recriminations over the Osama bi Laden killing? I find it interesting how hypocritical many can be when the shoe is on the other foot. Do as I say, not as I do. |
ochoin | 06 Jan 2020 3:46 p.m. PST |
It is a real shame that so many seem to be for the terrorists, This is beyond simplistic thinking. Surely I can criticise Mephistopheles without being a fan of Beelzebub? As usual, Shakespeare supplies the bon mot: "A plague o' both your houses!" |
Thresher01 | 06 Jan 2020 11:58 p.m. PST |
No one else around the globe (excepting those in Iran), other than one party's representatives here, seem to be falling all over themselves decrying the terrorists' deaths. Make of that what you will. |
ochoin | 07 Jan 2020 5:04 a.m. PST |
I make that partisan thinking and wrong. |
USAFpilot | 07 Jan 2020 7:20 a.m. PST |
The ONLY people who are criticizing the President for taking out the worlds' most notorious state sponsored terrorist are the American Democrats and the Liberal media. As former Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said, (paraphrased) you do NOT see nations around the world admonishing President Trump for his response to the attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. |
jefritrout | 07 Jan 2020 9:30 a.m. PST |
I would reply but this thread is bordering on political disputes. |
ochoin | 07 Jan 2020 1:08 p.m. PST |
The ONLY people etc Not even close to the truth. |
Rudysnelson | 07 Jan 2020 3:30 p.m. PST |
No one should debate any subject by using absolutes. There are always exceptions , so examples will never be 100% positive or 00% negative. |
ochoin | 07 Jan 2020 4:04 p.m. PST |
Rudy, you are the Voice of Reason. Well done. |
arealdeadone | 07 Jan 2020 5:13 p.m. PST |
The ONLY people who are criticizing the President for taking out the worlds' most notorious state sponsored terrorist are the American Democrats and the Liberal media. This wasn't a terrorist. It was a high ranking military officer serving in a sovereign state's military. Doing this further reduces US legitimacy and further erodes the already shambolic international rules system. If the Americans want the Russians and Chinese to play by the rules, they have to do it themselves in the first place. It also makes every single US military person a legitimate target regardless of where they are. As for terrorism, bear in mind the US actions could be viewed the same especially in places like Yemen or Libya or even Afghanistan where the US sides with some nasty warlords. Anyway Iran has let the missiles fly, striking a US Airbase in Iraq. No news on damage or casualties.
link EDIT: Turns out a second US base in Iraq was hit too: link US response will be "interesting" to say the least. |
USAFpilot | 08 Jan 2020 9:14 a.m. PST |
|
Bigby Wolf | 08 Jan 2020 11:53 a.m. PST |
@USAFpilot: thank you for posting that. |
HMS Exeter | 08 Jan 2020 12:18 p.m. PST |
So the Iranians launch a series of "ballistic" missiles at 2 US occupied facilities in Iraq and, apparently, caused no casualties. If confirmed… Does anyone know the Farsi word for "blink?" |
Bigby Wolf | 08 Jan 2020 12:20 p.m. PST |
|
wardog | 08 Jan 2020 2:35 p.m. PST |
guys may have missed this on the news ,i assume there was patriot missiles in the area ,didnt hear anything about them being launched to intercept or were they? |
arealdeadone | 08 Jan 2020 2:43 p.m. PST |
HMS Exeter Apparently the US had warning as the Iranians were launching missiles. Dunno if this was US radar systems but then US radar systems didn't manage to notice Iranian attacks on Saudi oil facilities or many Houthi ballistic missiles launches in Yemen. Some commentators think Iran deliberately orchestrated this attack in a manner to reduce risk to US personnel to avoid a much bigger response from the US. Basically a face saving measure. EDIT: Seems it was a mix of AWACS and the Iranians calling in the strike to the Iraqis who no doubt advised the Americans. link |
Ruchel | 08 Jan 2020 5:10 p.m. PST |
It is a real shame that so many seem to be for the terrorists, an Iranian general who plotted and ordered the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, and are supportive of MS-13 gang members, and other criminals. "the killing of hundreds of US soldiers", in fact, invaders and occupation forces, soldiers who were fighting for economic and colonialist interests. And what about the killing of hundred thousands (even millions) of Iraqi and Iranian people caused by US actions (US criminal invasion of Iraq and US support to Saddam Hussein during his attack against Iran)? Again, an example of hypocrisy, American propaganda, fanatical nationalism, lack of critical thinking and contempt for other cultures and civilizations. |
Col Durnford | 09 Jan 2020 7:28 a.m. PST |
At this point it look like yell and scream a lot, kill a few of their own people at the funeral, and fire off a pack of bottle rockets. I'm sure there are a few leftist wing nuts who are extremely disappointed. |
Dragon Gunner | 09 Jan 2020 11:56 a.m. PST |
@VCCarter My thoughts on the subject also now you can add shoot down civilian airliner to the list. link |
Tango01 | 09 Jan 2020 11:59 a.m. PST |
|
Thresher01 | 09 Jan 2020 12:01 p.m. PST |
Yep, the Iranians leaked to the Iraqis, who they knew would inform the Americans. Also, our satellites lit up big-time when their ballistic missiles fired off, giving warning as well. Looks like the Iranian "air defense" managed to shoot down a Ukrainian, civilian airliner, according to reports today. Everyone on board was killed. The Iranians are refusing to let Boeing and/or the NTSB and others inspect the aircraft, and claim the black boxes were damaged and some information was lost. Only problem is that they don't even know how to open, or inspect them, so how can they know that? There's video of a burning plane with parts falling off of it, which is synonymous with what you'd expect from a jetliner hit by one or more SAM missiles. |
darthfozzywig | 09 Jan 2020 4:24 p.m. PST |
"the killing of hundreds of US soldiers", in fact, invaders and occupation forces, soldiers who were fighting for economic and colonialist interests. Oddly enough, though, those US soldiers weren't occupying Iran, so why are Iranian military personnel engaged in hostile acts outside their own borders? Because Iran is engaged in their own imperialism across the region, as well as assassinations and other acts around the globe. These things happens. |