Consequences mount for Trump...

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

They wont because the military has already said they wont do it.

I haven't been able to find anything confirming this.  It seems like a wide spread mutiny among the armed forces when facing imminent attack would be breaking news across all media.

[Setton]

7 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I haven't been able to find anything confirming this. 

Esper. 

[Big Jim]

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Esper. 

I am fully confident that the president, the commander in chief, will not give us an illegal order,” Esper told reporters when asked if he would resign rather than violate international law if Trump ordered a strike on Iranian cultural sites.

“As I said, the United States military will, as it always has, obey the laws of armed conflict,” Esper added.

That doesn't sound like the military refusing, as you understood it.

[Big Jim]

18 minutes ago, Setton said:

Please. His comments in acidhead's link quite clearly show the idiot didn't even know it was illegal. Which I guess is better than suggesting it knowingly at least. 

Have you ever heard a hustler ask "what are the rules of this game, anyway?"  right before he cleans your clock?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 1/7/2020 at 3:24 AM, Farmer77 said:

Some seriously brainwashed people out there. 

Yes Obama dropped lots of bombs . Yes Trump gets beat up in the media. 

But ALSO yes this action by Trump IS different than actions by Obama AND has the potential for large long term consequences. 

The cult like inability to even discuss the issue is scary and yet still hilarious at the same time. 

How so? Obama authorised the death of a foreign national and violated the sovereignty of another nation in order to do so. Trump did the same. Only difference was the means of death.

[Habitat]

13 hours ago, Setton said:

Please. His comments in acidhead's link quite clearly show the idiot didn't even know it was illegal. Which I guess is better than suggesting it knowingly at least. 

I think that would be the case, he didn't realise it was "illegal".

[RoofGardener]

14 hours ago, Setton said:

And why do you think that was? 

To fight ISIS. Not to assassinate a foreign genderal, in peacetime, to feed his ego/get himself reelected/destroy his predecessor's legacy. 

Considering the activities of General Soleimani, and the whole concept of the Quds Force, I would suggest that Tehran was running an undeclared war against the US for several decades ? 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

How so? Obama authorised the death of a foreign national and violated the sovereignty of another nation in order to do so. Trump did the same. Only difference was the means of death.

Truly ? 

Obama authorised over 500 drone attacks in the territory of a foreign nation that we where NOT at war with, and without the permission of that nation. How does that differ from what President Trump has done ? 

Where is the illegality ? 

[.AKUMA.]

20 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Truly ? 

Obama authorised over 500 drone attacks in the territory of a foreign nation that we where NOT at war with, and without the permission of that nation. How does that differ from what President Trump has done ? 

Where is the illegality ? 

I think Trump gets alot of negative attention drawn to him unfairly, Obama as much as people like him, his decisions have resulted in far more devastation and death, while i do not agree with Trumps foreign policy, he has done alot more for his country then he gets credit for, and i fully beleive he truly does not want war, and if it was really up to him, he would have pulled troops back home along time ago.

[RoofGardener]

Hmmm... just read something interesting. 

A lot of anti-Trump media outlets are trumpeting this vote in the Iraqi parliament to remove US troops. 

Except... that's not really what happened. The Iraqi Parliament voted to REQUEST that the Iraqi government ask the troops to leave. The vote is not binding on the Iraqi government. 

In other words, it was all Virtue Signalling and bluster. Still not exactly a ringing endorsement of the US mind you. 

[Duke Wellington]

On 1/6/2020 at 9:45 AM, Captain Risky said:

Uproar and consequences mount for Trump after Soleimani killing

The Trump administration is already in danger of losing control of the swift chain reaction and political storm unleashed by its killing of Iran's top general, Qasem Soleimani.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/donald-trump-iran-iraq-impeachment/index.html

I admire Trump, he is not only strong but he tackles international problems head on.

Everyone knows that all US Presidents who start a war during their first term in office get re-elected. So now is the best time for him to strike, election year while the economy is doing great and the Democrats are trying to prosecute him for a fake impeachment. Trump is using his brain and I predict a landslide majority.

In the UK our original grievance with Iran was that we setup their oil industry then following their revolution they annexed it without compensating our investors for their loss. Since then they have developed imperialistic ambitions on the Middle East to relive the glories of ancient Persia. Along with that they have been frustrating the US and UK attempts to stabilize Iraq and other countries throughout the Middle East by funding and supporting proxy wars in them.

I predict Trump will officially declare war on Iran later then go attack all 52 targets on his list. Hopefully, they include all Iranian facilities involved in its nuclear industry. That swine, that Iranian General Soleimani was responsible the deaths of over 600 US military personal in Iraq. He was their lead figure in establishing proxy wars around the Middle East. Those cry baby Iranians cannot handle that he has been terminated and now think the US will tolerate 24 missiles being fires at their bases in Iraq.

Its time for the US to crush the Iranian menace!

Edited January 8, 2020 by RabidMongoose

[Duke Wellington]

Western media is reporting no deaths or injuries from the attacks.

Iranian media is reporting numerous dead and injured US soldiers. 80 dead and over 200 injured:

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/443924/Over-80-U-S-forces-dead-in-Iran-s-missile-strikes-on-targets

Edited January 8, 2020 by RabidMongoose

[Farmer77]

13 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

How so? Obama authorised the death of a foreign national and violated the sovereignty of another nation in order to do so. Trump did the same. Only difference was the means of death.

There are different consequences for punching a featherweight vs punching a heavyweight ....or I guess in this analogy middleweight may be more appropriate.

 

[Farmer77]

On 1/7/2020 at 5:54 PM, Big Jim said:

I haven't been able to find anything confirming this.  It seems like a wide spread mutiny among the armed forces when facing imminent attack would be breaking news across all media.

Despite Trump’s threats, Esper says U.S. won’t target Iranian cultural sites

Quote

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the U.S. will “follow the laws of armed conflict.” When asked if that ruled out targeting cultural sites, Esper said pointedly, “That’s the laws of armed conflict.”

 

I think the fact that its not a major story across all networks really highlights how much trouble we are in as a nation.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

On 1/7/2020 at 5:48 PM, Big Jim said:

It is, including the Commander in Chief.  Like I said earlier, I think he said this just to stir up the opposition at home and abroad.  It sure worked.   This is straight out of his rules for negotiation, say the worst thing first.  You can always back down later.  He has a concession point that he was never going to do anyway.   This all might be more obvious if you didn't assume the worst first.  His ability to trigger his enemies includes online critics too.

But why though? This really reminds me of the immigration discussion. It didnt "work", this is the exact same thing Bush or Obama would have done. Just without the insulting, demeaning and insanity.

[.AKUMA.]

21 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I admire Trump, he is not only strong but he tackles international problems head on.

Everyone knows that all US Presidents who start a war during their first term in office get re-elected. So now is the best time for him to strike, election year while the economy is doing great and the Democrats are trying to prosecute him for a fake impeachment. Trump is using his brain and I predict a landslide majority.

In the UK our original grievance with Iran was that we setup their oil industry then following their revolution they annexed it without compensating our investors for their loss. Since then they have developed imperialistic ambitions on the Middle East to relive the glories of ancient Persia. Along with that they have been frustrating the US and UK attempts to stabilize Iraq and other countries throughout the Middle East by funding and supporting proxy wars in them.

I predict Trump will officially declare war on Iran later then go attack all 52 targets on his list. Hopefully, they include all Iranian facilities involved in its nuclear industry. That swine, that Iranian General Soleimani was responsible the deaths of over 600 US military personal in Iraq. He was their lead figure in establishing proxy wars around the Middle East. Those cry baby Iranians cannot handle that he has been terminated and now think the US will tolerate 24 missiles being fires at their bases in Iraq.

Its time for the US to crush the Iranian menace!

So are you actively condoning war crimes againt Iran? you realize what those 52 potential targets include right? the entire middle east seems to be a playground for proxy warfare, Iran isnt the only player here, there are elements that both the US and Saudis are funding to drive their own personal interests in the region. Both Israel and the US have previously launched strikes on Iranian assests in the region, although official nunbers aren't readily available it is likely higher then the 600 US soldiers that have been killed.

Edited January 9, 2020 by .AKUMA.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, .AKUMA. said:

So are you actively condoning war crimes againt Iran? you realize what those 52 potential targets include right? the entire middle east seems to be a playground for proxy warfare, Iran isnt the only player here, there are elements that both the US and Saudis are funding to drive their own personal interests in the region. Both Israel and the US have previously launched strikes on Iranian assests in the region, although official nunbers aren't readily available it is likely higher then the 600 US soldiers that have been killed.

US and NATO soldiers die in Iraq due to being shot or blown up by Iranian backed militia frequently.

Trump has every right to kick their behinds, I like that he has done it, he has shown the world that unlike some of his predecessors he has a backbone.

[RoofGardener]

Well, I hope that President Trump takes advantage of the Virtue Signalling from the Iraqi Parliament, and uses it as a rational for removing all 5000 US military personnel from Iraq. 

We should just let them get on with it. The Iranian militia's can duke it out with ISIS. The Kurds can take over the North of the country. The Shia and Sunni can disintegrate into civil war. 

Winston Churchill described Iraq - back in the 1920's - as an "ungrateful volcano". Nothing has changed since. The USA should just pull out and leave them to the barbarity of their medieval malignant religion.  

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-123/wit-wisdom-iraq-the-ungrateful-volcano/

Quote

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to cooperate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study.

It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say ‘I told you so’ at the first misfortune.

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.

Edited January 9, 2020 by RoofGardener

[Setton]

33 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

US and NATO soldiers die in Iraq due to being shot or blown up by Iranian backed militia frequently.

Pretty sure there hadn't been any since 2011 at least until December. 

[Setton]

24 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I hope that President Trump takes advantage of the Virtue Signalling from the Iraqi Parliament, and uses it as a rational for removing all 5000 US military personnel from Iraq. 

We should just let them get on with it. The Iranian militia's can duke it out with ISIS. The Kurds can take over the North of the country. The Shia and Sunni can disintegrate into civil war. 

Winston Churchill described Iraq - back in the 1920's - as an "ungrateful volcano". Nothing has changed since. The USA should just pull out and leave them to the barbarity of their medieval malignant religion.  

While I love the 'ungrateful volcano' description, abandoning the country is a bad idea. Iran will rapidly take full control and, at some point, come into open conflict with Israel. That's when ISIS will pop back up, take territory and start using that territory to plan attacks in the UK and Europe again. 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

While I love the 'ungrateful volcano' description, abandoning the country is a bad idea. Iran will rapidly take full control and, at some point, come into open conflict with Israel. That's when ISIS will pop back up, take territory and start using that territory to plan attacks in the UK and Europe again. 

As memory serves, ISIS didn't start doing European terror attacks until AFTER the UK started attacking them in Iraq/Syria ? So if we pull out and leave them to it, I would rather hope that they would not trouble us. All UK citizens who want to go there to fight should be allowed to do so, but their UK passports would be cancelled, so that they could not automatically come back again. 

As for Iran taking over Iraq.. who cares ? They still don't get a land border with Israel, and if the Iranians DID somehow attack Israel, they would get their heads handed to them. 

[+and-then]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:46 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Obama authorised the death of a foreign national and violated the sovereignty of another nation in order to do so.

He did a hell of a lot more than that.  Remember Anwar al Awlaki? He and his 16-year old son, BOTH U.S. citizens, got popped by uncle Oby.  No due process, nada.  Just for the record, the guy was murderous scum, IMO.  BUT... can you freakin' imagine what we'd be treated to if Trump did that?  THAT is the disgusting aspect of the hypocrisy in the meltdown media.  

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, .AKUMA. said:

Both Israel and the US have previously launched strikes on Iranian assests in the region, although official nunbers aren't readily available it is likely higher then the 600 US soldiers that have been killed.

Fewer than 600 have died so far and most of those have been Shia militiamen working for Soleimani.  Israel made the mistake back in the 80s of allowing the Hizballah to take root in Lebanon.  Iran built it from the ground up and it has been thoroughly blooded now from the long Syrian campaign.  It is well equipped, has well trained officers and non coms and is an effective fighting force.  Add to that an estimated 100-150,000 missiles at their command and Israel has a REAL problem on their border with Lebanon.  Soleimani was attempting to build another force just like it in Syria and the IDF and Netanyahu said...NOPE.  Not gonna happen, this far and no farther.  Then, they did something about it.  They told him and the world that they would continue striking Iran's proxies until they pulled out of Syria.  Since then they have kept their promise but Iran still keeps attempting to build missile forces in Syria, Iraq and now even Yemen and Israel is striking their warehouses and bases in all those locations.  Now that Soleimani is salami, it will be interesting to see if someone else will be as dogged in these attempts. 

[Setton]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

As memory serves, ISIS didn't start doing European terror attacks until AFTER the UK started attacking them in Iraq/Syria ? So if we pull out and leave them to it, I would rather hope that they would not trouble us. All UK citizens who want to go there to fight should be allowed to do so, but their UK passports would be cancelled, so that they could not automatically come back again. 

ISIS hates us because we won't treat then like a state. We won't negotiate with them. Unless you're suggesting we bow to their demands to free hostages, they will attack us again. 

Quote

As for Iran taking over Iraq.. who cares ? They still don't get a land border with Israel, and if the Iranians DID somehow attack Israel, they would get their heads handed to them. 

They get a land corridor to their friends in Syria, which does border Israel. They also get hundreds of km closer to Tel Aviv. Which means more of their stuff can reach it.

Asnfor Israel winning, probably. But at what cost to the world?