January 5, 2020

"It is impossible to overstate the importance... It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of al-Baghdadi."

"Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria.... [Trump's] reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.... Iran is in a very precarious economic situation, it is very fragile domestically.... It will be interesting now to see if there is a U.S. diplomatic initiative to reach out to Iran and to say, 'Okay, the next move could be strikes against your oil infrastructure and your forces in your country—where does that end?'... Obviously all sides will suffer if this becomes a wider war, but Iran has to be very worried that—in the state of its economy, the significant popular unrest and demonstrations against the regime—that this is a real threat to the regime in a way that we have not seen prior to this.... Yes, they can respond and they can retaliate, and that can lead to further retaliation—and that it is clear now that the administration is willing to take very substantial action. This is a pretty clarifying moment in that regard.... Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War...."

Said David Petraeus in an interview with Foreign Policy.

469 comments:

1 – 200 of 469   Newer›   Newest»
chickelit said...

Well, according to Chuck's latest, the man was a martyred peacemaker.

Beasts of England said...

That’s gonna leave a mark on our resident lefty generalissimos. Help us Ben Rhodes - you’re our only hope!

Lyle said...

Yep, wars can bring down regimes. The Mullahs better be very careful in their choosing their next moves. They could go the way of the Ottoman Empire or Austria-Hungary. It would be the end of Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon too, perhaps.

Michael K said...

True but I doubt Field Marshal Freder agrees. Who are you gonna believe?

chickelit said...

It's come down to beliefs in this impenetrable fog of war. But in this fog, we see clearly that Chuck believes the enemy.

Skeptical Voter said...

That's Petraeus's way of saying "This [blank] just got real for Iran." Well mess with the bull, you will occasionally get the horns. There are other commenters out there who argue the best way to apply pressure to Iran is to go for a secondary boycott--shutting off food and other items for Iran shipped by other nations. It is true that a good portion of the Iranian population today fits the description "the natives are restless".

But do I care whether the mullahs (or any other government) in Iran is toppled? Didn't the CIA already do that with Mossadegh more than 65 years ago? Robert Frost was correct when he wrote that "good fences make good neighbors". I'd just as soon have a good fence between us and Iran and allow their various partisan factions to duke it out without involving us. Unfortunately it's also true that, while you may not want war, war wants you.

Limited blogger said...

Maybe I can visit Tehran some day?

Tomcc said...

When Suleimani's death was on the news a couple of days ago, my thoughts were that it's probably a net benefit. But now that Sec. of State Colin Kaepernick has weighed in, I see the situation for what it really is!

mccullough said...

Trump is willing to deal. He’s a realist. He doesn’t care about democracy in Iran or in Hong Kong.

The Mullahs are very stupid if they don’t cut a deal. And it’s not the deal Obama gave them. That is not even their opening ask.

William said...

The mullahs have a history of using the children of Iran to clear mine fields. I'm none too sanguine about their response being measured or sane. Rational self interest is not what they do in that part of the world.....Still, maybe things will work out. They're willing to send children to clear mine fields, but not actually their own children, nor, of course, themselves. Suleimani was one of their council. His death might help to focus their minds on the risks involved in escalation.

Francisco D said...

For the last few years, everything Trump has done was going to result in absolute disaster, but the opposite occurs.

It started with Paul Krugman's stock market crash and now it is full scale war with Iran.

Gee. I wonder if these "predictions" are based on anything other than wishful thinking.

Lefties have really discredited themselves as hysterical and sadly ignorant teenagers.

Josephbleau said...

I like the old Iowa Hawk quote from the ME goat herder, “Trump Stronk! Like Bool!”

rcocean said...

People get into this dumb attitude of thinking the other side is always just responding to what we do. No, they have their own plans and objectives. The Iranians weren't just sitting around minding their own business when big, bad, Trump killed their revered military leader.

Talking about Iran's "response" - is falling into a trap. Every Hostile action is not a response to what we've done. 9-11 wasn't "Retaliation".

William said...

After a particularly horrendous napalm bombing of Tokyo, the war council there met to discuss future military moves. There was not even a discussion of the recent fifty thousand civilian casualties. To the Japanese military, the civilian population existed to defend the honor of the military and not the other way around.....The civilian population of Iran exists to safeguard the sanctity of the mullah's faith and not the other way around. I wonder when the civilian population of Iran will catch on to this.

rcocean said...

Iran can go to war anytime they wish. They can find a justification - if they look hard enough. Hitler and Stalin had a "justification" for attacking Poland.

Tom T. said...

Petraeus's statement might have more impact if we hadn't been told for three years that literally everything Trump does is about to bring on the apocalypse. I'm sure I'm not alone in having hyperbole fatigue.

Josephbleau said...

But, if everything isn’t a response to what we have done, then how could we be guilty of provoking them?

rcocean said...

"horrendous napalm bombing of Tokyo"


Yes, terror bombing didn't work in WW2. We firebombed Dresden, killed 50,000 women and children, but it didn't faze Hilter one bit.

Fernandistein said...

What more can Iran do that 'it has not already done?'

Well, they got someone to give them the password for the web servers at the Federal Depository Library Program, pitiful as that is compared to hacking fbi.gov or army.mil.

Dave Begley said...

Guy should have been taken out long ago.

Report that US base in Kenya attacked. Big mistake, Iran. If Trump takes out your oil infrastructure, you're bankrupt.

rcocean said...

Another great thing Trump has done is shown the so-called Foreign Policy experts to be a bunch of frauds. They've reflexively labeled almost everything Trump has done "Wrong" - and it turns out he's been almost entirely right. Despite being a "TV Game Show Star".

Lucid-Ideas said...

Regimes = institutions = people, lots of high-power people

People dead < institution survives < institutions finds more replacements < they die < institution falters < replacements unavailable < regime dead

I recall Louis XIV statement "le etat se moi" (I am the state). For most of human history this has always been the case. Go high enough you get to a core of irreplaceable people. Kill the king, or chieftain, or enough of the conclave and the thing will fall. Institutions are harder than regimes, but not entirely dissimilar.

The problem with so much of the world and its history is that its history - up until very recently - is regime based. Some have managed the institutional conversion truly but not many. And they wonder why they rise and fall usually within the span of 4-5 decades.

Fernandistein said...

As some actor said at the end of some movie "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve", but that wouldn't apply to Iran so it must refer to the Federal Depository Library Program.

Sebastian said...

"This is a pretty clarifying moment in that regard."

Trump clarifies that "leaders" outside Russia and China operate at our sufferance, that America is willing to use force when we need to, that O and his minions did not have our best interests in mind, that the experts who counseled detente were wrong, and that many Dems actively support our adversaries over the actual president.

The Drill SGT said...

Killing that thug was a net plus. Iran was and is continuously planning to attack us, embarrass us, weaken us. Killing Suleimani makes it retaliation from an MSM perspective. For them, it's business as usual. Now they are under pressure to "do something", but there by the MSM. They will rush something that was in the planning or staging phase. That is to our advantage.

Yancey Ward said...

Trump has revealed the illogic of it all. The US has been targeting and killing the terrorists that Suleimani was supplying and directing for 20 years, and yet people are now up in arms about targeting and killing Suleimani himself. If these battles are moral and just, then targeting Suleimani and his replacements should have been priority number one, not number "never". Targeting the mullahs that govern Iran should also be moved up the list if we are to continue to engage in this war- this idea that the grunts and other useful tools are ok as drone targets, but not the leaders, is one of the sillier and immoral things I have seen.

Maybe this ends with the US pulling up stakes and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan altogether- to which I will applaud.

Fernandistein said...

Hitler and Stalin had a "justification" for attacking Poland.

To put an end to those horrible Polish jokes, no doubt, like this one: "Polish loan shark lends out all his money, skips town."

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

There will be retaliation. The retaliation has to be from Iran itself and not a proxy. They raised the red flag of sever battle or whatever claptrap they mean.

The head military guy was on CNN saying there will be retaliation by Iran because Trump acted directly.

They can't just tuck tail and do nothing. They can't negotiate first. I'm not sure how long they can wait before their enemies and supporters get involved due to the signs of weakness.

They didn't see the US taking out their guy. They weren't prepared and they had no backup plans in place. They screwed up and now they are boxed in.

I think this is the endgame for the ayotollahs. They either force out the US and dominate the shite sphere or the government collapses.

My guess is Iran will strike militarily in the hope of not getting global sanctions. Trump will strike back and take out their navy, refineries and damage their nuclear operation as much as possible (but I'm pretty sure those sites are well hardened).

Then will see what happens.

Dave Begley said...

Reuters, "U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield in Lamu county, close to the Somali border and said it had repelled the militants along with Kenyan forces.

The Kenyan military said five militants had been killed in the attack. There were no immediate reports of Kenyan or U.S. casualties.

The Kenya Police report said two U.S. helicopters and a Cessna aircraft had been destroyed as well as “multiple” American military vehicles. A Kenyan Cessna aircraft was also destroyed, it said.

In a statement earlier on Sunday al Shabaab claimed they had destroyed seven aircraft and three military vehicles, without providing other details. It also published pictures of masked gunmen standing next to an aircraft in flames.

Major Karl Wiest from AFRICOM told Reuters fewer than 150 U.S. personnel were at the base, where they provide training and counter-terrorism support to East African forces."

The Drill SGT said...

Fernandistein said...
As some actor said at the end of some movie "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve", but that wouldn't apply to Iran so it must refer to the Federal Depository Library Program.


Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. "Tora, Tora, Tora". Apparently a fake but accurate quote.

Matched by Vice Admiral Halsey on December 8. Surveying the wreckage of the Pacific Fleet, he remarked, "Before we're through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.

and Operation Vengeance, when we targeted Yamamoto for death.

Kevin said...

Thanks for posting this Althouse.

It hasn’t gotten much media play.

mockturtle said...

The Iraqi Parliament wants us out: Link Why not humor them? Haven't we rather overstayed our welcome?

mockturtle said...

Is there any place we don't have a military base?

Narayanan said...

Maybe this ends with the US pulling up stakes and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan altogether-

_____&&&&&+++++
Can we leave Generals behind

to which I will applaud.

Fernandistein said...

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. "Tora, Tora, Tora". Apparently a fake but accurate quote.

Does it matter whether that "sleeping giant" statement was created by a big-shot military guy who was losing a war, or by Hollywood screenwriters?

Yes, because we like quotations that we already agree or sympathize with, and it matters who we're agreeing with although you can still appreciate quotations even if screenwriters made them up, like "He hates these cans!" or "Do it right this time!" because if I actually knew which screenwriter wrote those lines I would probably no longer find much wisdom in them.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Big whoop the Shite politicians passed a non-binding resolution asking for foreign forces to leave the country.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

“Maybe I can visit Tehran some day?”

Persepolis is on my bucket list. But not while the stone-age Muzzie fucktards reign.

iowan2 said...

Back to back posts with differing opinions.
Proof positive President Trump is chaotic, undisciplined and stupid. Also that he is not listening to his advisers because he did something different than two preceding Presidents.

People cutting and pasting from media talking heads just because it supports the position of orangeman bad, the most heavily impacted.

Rusty said...

Iraq has a functioning parliment? I wonder if their elections are less corrupt than elections in Illinois. Specifically Chicago and Cook county. Who's responsible for that shit?

Narayanan said...

Amazing to see USA foreign policy discussion resemblance to battered spouse and child style analysis with nowayout level atmospheric. .

Mr. Majestyk said...

"It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action."

Really? Hmm, let me give it a try: The killing of Suleimani was the single most consequential event in the history of the Universe.

I think I did it. That was easy.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Didn't Obambi say he was "getting pretty good at killing people" with his drones? I'd say The president has him right outta the blocks. But, Obambi was hampered by all those Iranian advisors.

Seeing Red said...

Frack baby frack

bonkti said...

Nice to see that General Petraeus has the big picture. As long as President Trump learned his lesson and cleared the recent action with Lt. Colonel Vindeman I am okay with it.

Roughcoat said...

Yes, terror bombing didn't work in WW2.

Familiarize yourself with the postwar Strategic Bombing survey. Read Richard Overy's analysis. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Roughcoat said...

Is there any place we don't have a military base?

Monaco, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

Michael K said...

The mullahs have a history of using the children of Iran to clear mine fields. I'm none too sanguine about their response being measured or sane.

I used to interview applicants to UC, Irvine medical school. One applicant, who I strongly recommended, was an Iranian young man who had served in an aid station in the Iran-Iraq War. After seeing that, he left and came to California where he went to college while working nights at Sun Microsystems. The experience of seeing what the mullahs were willing to do was enough for him.

Big Mike said...

From Instapundit:

"Following the death of Soleimani, it seems like nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/forpol commentariat has penned variations on exactly the same essay: the President has acted hastily, has no plan, and isn’t capable of envisioning or handling what happens next. The template was established by Ben Rhodes on Twitter a few hours after an MQ-9 Reaper shot a Hellfire missile directly into his professional legacy, and it hasn’t varied much since.

Yet the more we learn — about the deliberations preceding the strike, about the chain of events leading to it, about the prior and subsequent moves by CENTCOM to harden the American position in the region — the more it seems that the President acted with deliberate aforethought, that he does in fact have a plan, and therefore likely is capable of envisioning and handling what happens next. That much is only fair, whether or not one agrees with the decision as such.

What nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/ forpol commentariat actually means by its critique, though, is that they weren’t included in any of this. Ben Rhodes took the time to rally them together, get their talking points aligned, illuminate a pathway to social and professional advancement: that’s their preferred template for Iran-related policymaking.

Donald Trump’s template for Iran-related policymaking is the smoking wreckage of a terror mastermind’s vehicle. The courtiers see it, and want to know what’s in it for them.

Americans see it, and they know."

Michael K said...

Familiarize yourself with the postwar Strategic Bombing survey.

What didn't work was daylight precision bombing.

stevew said...

Reading this analysis, and the WaPo info posted earlier, I get the impression that all these experts have absolutely no idea what Iran will do and when. Petreaus at least lays out what he identifies as the trade-offs for Iran and the regime.

What is Iran's goal? How is it served or advanced by all the violence and trouble making they have been engaged in over the past 40 years? Figure those out and it will be substantially easier to predict what they will do. Do you suppose our foreign service and military elites know or have a good idea of the answers?

Seeing Red said...

After a particularly horrendous napalm bombing of Tokyo, the war council there met to discuss future military moves. There was not even a discussion of the recent fifty thousand civilian casualties. To the Japanese military, the civilian population existed to defend the honor of the military and not the other way around.....The civilian population of Iran exists to safeguard the sanctity of the mullah's faith and not the other way around. I wonder when the civilian population of Iran will catch on to this.


Fodder

Believe it or not, the US does value life.

We’ve spent trillions developing weapons that kill as few civilians as possible, while others want to kill as many civilians as possible. And hide behind children.





Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Who would like to summarize Trump's position on the war?

Is he for or against troops in Iraq?

Meade said...

"Frack baby frack"

Allow me to paraphrase VP Joe Biden in 2012:

“General Fracking is alive and General Soleimani is dead.”

https://youtu.be/bKCwQnIygcw

Seeing Red said...

Known knowns known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

What will we do, close the Strait?

Bruce Hayden said...

“The civilian population of Iran exists to safeguard the sanctity of the mullah's faith and not the other way around. I wonder when the civilian population of Iran will catch on to this.”

I think that they have. Weekly mosque attendance has apparently crashed through much of Iran, with the attendance in the larger cities in the lower single digits. Which is why the center mass of Shi’a Islam has seemingly moved from Iran to Iraq over the last several decades, partially probably because the Shiite Mullahs run Iran, while Sunni Saddam Hussein tried to oppress the Shiite religion of the majority of his subjects. By the time that he was deposed, clerics like Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husseini Sistani had become one of the de facto leaders of the opposition. But, critically, after liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime, Sistani refused secular power offered him, and instead continued to criticize the Mullahs in Tehran that continued to rule there for having seized it. No surprise - Sistani is far more revered than the ruling Mullahs in Tehran by many Iranians.

Seeing Red said...

Old plans being dusted off?

Seeing Red said...

Hmmmm, if the NG is activated, will Virginia have a harder time grabbing guns? Or will the Minstral not allow them to go so they can stormtroop homes of legal 2nd Amendment supporters?

Michael said...

ARM
There is a “war” only in your dream of a Trump catastrophe in the ME. Which is not happening. Sorry you are sad about this.

gilbar said...

It's Interesting,
how often people will respond to a mention of the Meetinghouse strike of Tokyo by saying;
Yes, but What about Dresden!!!
My liberal Brother in Law does that Every time i mention it.

As Al Smith would say; let's take a look, at the Record
1st Meetinghouse raid
90,000 to 100,000 killed (most common estimates)
Over one million homeless
267,171 buildings destroyed

Dresden
22,700–25,000 killed
78,000 dwellings had been completely destroyed;

Now, IF you can do BASIC math, you'll be able to see that IF people are talking about the 1st Meetinghouse Raid (1st of a WEEK of city burnings), and someone says:
Yes, But What About Dresden?

What they are Saying, is that THEY ARE NOT VERY GOOD AT MATH

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Blogger Michael said...
There is a “war” only in your dream of a Trump catastrophe in the ME.


We are unquestionably at war. We just killed Iran's second in command. Everyone is agreed on that. That is an act of war.

Seeing Red said...

So is storming an embassy.

Twice.

Lyle said...

AReasonableMan,

We've been at war with this guy for years. When Obama says he is responsible for killing 600 US servicemen, we weren't already at war?

And thank you for acknowledging it wasn't a war crime or illegal act... because it was an act of war carried out in an ongoing war.

Watch Iran do very little after us killing their warrior saint. They know war can end regimes.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

We have been at war for 40 years. Attacking an embassy is an act of war. Sinking a navy is an act of war. Attacking ships in the straits is an act of war. Attacking a military base is an act of war. Attacking an embassy is an act of war.

Welcome to reality ARM. It took you awhile but here you are.

Seeing Red said...

No, they’ve been at war with us/the West for decades or 1500 years, take your pick.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Lyle said...
We've been at war with this guy for years.


Never said we had not been. Your argument is with Michael.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

OT but ARM should change his name to "revered" commentator ARM. It would be a little funnier and more current.

MikeR said...

@ARM "We are unquestionably at war. We just killed Iran's second in command. Everyone is agreed on that. That is an act of war." Yeah, but that's irrelevant. That kind of war we were in already. What no one want is the kind of war where we do something ridiculous like invading Iran. Look, at these critics must mean something when they cry, This has made war more likely!

Seeing Red said...

Some times we send the Danegeld, some times the Marines.

Kassaar said...

“We are unquestionably at war. We just killed Iran's second in command. Everyone is agreed on that. That is an act of war.”

While attacking the American embassy wasn’t?

Bruce Hayden said...

“What nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/ forpol commentariat actually means by its critique, though, is that they weren’t included in any of this. Ben Rhodes took the time to rally them together, get their talking points aligned, illuminate a pathway to social and professional advancement: that’s their preferred template for Iran-related policymaking”

My suggestion in the overnight thread was that we saw with the “testimony” before Schifty and his HSCI that Obama’s people had embedded a number of their fellow travelers in policy positions at the NSC, CIA, and State Department. They try to control foreign policy through control of the process. In both cases, their complaint has been that Trump’s decision making is too chaotic, which appears to be code for him bypassing the foreign policy process controlled by the Deep State bureaucrats previously embedded by the Obama Administration. Trump understands now what has been going on with these embeds, and the NSC is currently being reorganized, theoretically moving many of the more recalcitrant Obama embeds out of the White House and back to their agencies.

And why would they care? Because Obama’s capitulation to Iran was his signature foreign policy achievement (after the collapse of his Arab Spring initiative into chaos and massive out migration to the EU). In trade for pallets of cash, delivered in the middle of the night (to evade Congressional oversight into his violation of their monetary sanctions on Iran), Iran pretended to agree to shutting down their nuclear ambitions. Of course, Iran wasn’t going to conform to the fake treaty, which was DOA in the Senate in any case (so was never submitted). They just pretended for awhile to not be developing nuclear weapons. Trump has, of course, been dismantling Obama’s Iranian legacy, because it never made sense from the point of view of America’s interests - which is why Ben Rhodes was tasked with selling it to the American people, which he later bragged about lying through his teeth to do.

Bottom line here - Rhodes and his fellow travelers are butt hurt that Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement was just incinerated so completely by those drone launched (AGM-114) thermobaric Hellfire missile strikes at the Baghdad airport last week.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

What is the upside for us to be at war with Iran? I can see an upside for the Saudis and the Israelis, but what is the upside for us?

What happened to America First?

Wince said...

Yancey Ward said...
Trump has revealed the illogic of it all. The US has been targeting and killing the terrorists that Suleimani was supplying and directing for 20 years, and yet people are now up in arms about targeting and killing Suleimani himself. If these battles are moral and just, then targeting Suleimani and his replacements should have been priority number one, not number "never". ... this idea that the grunts and other useful tools are ok as drone targets, but not the leaders, is one of the sillier and immoral things I have seen.

It does seem like a professional courtesy extended Suleimani by the Deep State, for whom federal pensions are their 72 virgins.

Seeing Red said...

Ahhh, ignore the embassies ARM.

Jim at said...

What is the upside for us to be at war with Iran?

Iran has been at war with us for the last 40 years, and what has it gotten us? A bunch of dead Americans with nothing to show for it.

Maybe - just maybe - we should try a different approach.

n.n said...

There isn't progress anew. Not yet. Iran has the choice to fill in JCPOA's missing links, withdraw support for terrorist proxies, reconcile with her neighbors, and stop aborting her own people when they dissent. Well, the the last one is her choice, but it would be advisable if they want to remain viable.

Roughcoat said...

In addition to achieving tangible military results, inflicting irreparable damage on the German and Japanese economies, strategic bombing also achieved the goals exacting vengeance and delivering just retribution on Germany and Japan. These are legitimate war aims in and of themselves -- file them under "just deserts." But they had a practical end as well. In order to eradicate German and Japanese militarism those nations had to be pulverized and made to suffer. A lot of people had to die. They had to be punished and taught a lesson they would never forget. Their military leadership and civilian elites had to be convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that they had lost the war as well as their legitimacy to command and rule. Defeating their military forces would not alone accomplish this task. That course had been tried in 1918 and it didn't work. There could be no "stab in the back" sentiments.

They were lucky. We could have destroyed them utterly, sent them all to hell, erased their populations from the face of the earth, emptied out their countrysides, sowed their fiels with salt. That was more or less what they had planned for us, in the event they had won the war.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

We wouldn't have any dead Americans if we weren't over there interfering in the first place.

What is the upside for us?

walter said...


Blogger Fernandistein said...
What more can Iran do that 'it has not already done?'
Well, they got someone to give them the password for the web servers at the Federal Depository Library Program.
--
Releasing the fury of an army of librarians.
They don't realize what they've done.
General Kaepernick would have punted..because "black and brown bodies"

Blogger Kassaar said...
While attacking the American embassy wasn’t?
--
A: Shut up!

Meade,
"Son of a bitch!" 7 yrs took a toll on ole Joe. Though even then he had early stage of mush-mouth (not stuttering, btw)

Larry J said...

“ Blogger Francisco D said...
For the last few years, everything Trump has done was going to result in absolute disaster, but the opposite occurs.

It started with Paul Krugman's stock market crash and now it is full scale war with Iran.

Gee. I wonder if these "predictions" are based on anything other than wishful thinking.

Lefties have really discredited themselves as hysterical and sadly ignorant teenagers.”.

Why, it’s almost as if the entire set of Deep State operatives, complete with Ivy League diplomas and convinced their excrement has no odor, don’t know whay they're talking about. Imagine that, these so-called intellectual emperors in their fancy clothes are naked after all.

tcrosse said...

What frightens me is the cult of the Hidden Mahdi, whose return will be hastened by a nuclear war.

Hagar said...

The "pallets of cash" of course were worth a lot more than their nominal value in funding Iran's undeclared asymmetrical war (AKA "terrorist activities") on the United States, but was small change in the amounts of money actually funneled to Iran.
Remember that the highly publicized $400 million on the "pallets of cash" were followed by $1.3 billion in "money transfers," less prominently publicized.
Then $150 billion "released," or whatever, with no publicity at all, but this was real money with which to finance the Iranian government and the regime's continued existence right up to today.

A very slick operation on the part of the Obama administration!

J. Farmer said...

Iran's 'Frozen' Assets: Exaggeration on Both Sides of the Debate

Gospace said...

2017 UK Daily Mail article with pics on Iran 50 years ago:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

Remember, the evil Shah was overthrown with full approval from the DEMOCRAT POTUS Jimmy Carter.

Can't you see from pictures today the people are much better off enjoying their freedom from the evil dictatorship of shahs?

Jim at said...

We wouldn't have any dead Americans if we weren't over there interfering in the first place.

I know it's a waste of time to engage with a fifth-column POS like you, but having embassies in foreign nations is not interfering.

It wasn't in 1979. And it isn't now.

narciso said...

That airforce defector, nurges witt probably gave them the password

narciso said...

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/counterintelligence/monica-elfriede-witt

Seeing Red said...

Via Rantburg: The mullahs of Iran have placed an $80 million bounty on the head of President Donald Trump in revenge for the hit that killed Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. Iranian state television announced the bounty, framing it as an offer on behalf of the Iranian people.

Seeing Red said...

What frightens me is the cult of the Hidden Mahdi, whose return will be hastened by a nuclear war.


They will be sorely disappointed.

narciso said...

Well hes made their wallets light

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2020/01/fullbore-friday.html?m=1#disqus_thread

The withdrawal vote is less than meets the eye

narciso said...

As bad as herbert matthews perhaps even duranty



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1213851844243591169.html

narciso said...


As valid as peach mint


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1213836196612321280.html?refreshed=yes

Browndog said...

I can remember the universal hatred of Iran in the wake of the Hostage crisis, even 20 years on.

They chanted Death to America the day they over-ran the embassy, and haven't stopped to this day.

Now, libs Glorify them and their terrorist general masquerading as a military officer.

The only explanation I have is while Iranians chant "Death to America" publicly, democrats whisper it privately.

Browndog said...

I mean, even after Achmadinnerjacket was identified as one of the hostage takers, he was still welcomed with open arms to speak at Harvard.

Hagar said...

The amounts may well have been exaggerated, they usually are, but still real money, even on the scale of the U.S. economy and very large for Iran, and given by and blessed by the United States government good as a basis for credit for even more money to fund the regime.

narciso said...

I think that was a sweetener, as soltzhenitsyn noted, they are deep in to self hatred, also columbia, richard bulliet is the dean of said scribes.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Again, where is the fucking upside for us?

If the Iraqis want us out of there, why not just leave? It's a shit-hole country. Why create a whole new generation anxious to die a martyr's death fighting the Great Satan? What is the upside for us in this action? How does this fit with Trump's claim that it's American First from now on? Or was that just all bullshit for the rubes?

Drago said...

ARM: "Again, where is the fucking upside for us?"

Would you mind providing a link where you were asking this question prior to January of 2016?

LOL

What a colossal hack you are! Not Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck level mind you, but still....

Michael K said...

If the Iraqis want us out of there, why not just leave? It's a shit-hole country.

I'm for it. Like usual, you are pushing on an open door. Nobody wants to stay there except a few neocons. The pluses and minuses need to be added by some one not a moron like you. All you want is anything not Trump.

0_0 said...

Revered Commenter ARM said...

"I have no clue."

bagoh20 said...

What makes some people so mad about this is that we prevented Suleimani from executing future attacks and killing Americans which could be used against Trump politically. I think they call that "abuse of power" for his own benefit, and attempting to influence our elections. The only way to stop this corruption is to impeach the selfish bastard.

Oh yea, I almost forgot: Death to America, and orange man bad. Allāhu akbar!

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Drago, what is your position on the war?

Are you for or against troops in Iraq?

Michael said...

ARM
“We've been at war with this guy for years.

Never said we had not been. Your argument is with Michael.”

Can’t be at war with a dead man.

Roughcoat said...

One upside of this action was that retribution (i.e. justice) was visited upon a killer who was responsible for killing many Americans and who was planning to kill many more. There are other upsides but retribution suffices for me. Think of it, too, as an object lesson,pour encourager les autres. Of course the "encouragement" is unquantifiable just as the death penalty's deterrent effect is unquantifiable. There are those who believe the death penalty has no deterrent effect. I am not one of them. It's like trying to prove a negative. But, as I said, retribution alone is justification.

Drago said...

ARM: "Are you for or against troops in Iraq?"

In what capacities, for what potential missions, for which objectives, over what time frame?

You see ARM, you are so ignorant and out of your depth that its pointless to even discuss this with you and LLR-lefty Chuck.

Just put on your p****-hats and head out to your rally/riot and burn down another starbucks or 2.

Achilles said...

Drago said...
ARM: "Again, where is the fucking upside for us?"

Would you mind providing a link where you were asking this question prior to January of 2016?

I am quite sure he was saying the same thing before 2009 as well.

We all know why he stopped bitching about endless wars for those 8 years.

ARM doesn't care about this issue at all except how he can use it against his true enemies.

We all know who their true enemies are. The left has let the mask slip completely.

Paul said...

Damn right!!! Bomb bomb bomb Iran... as a late Senator once said.

We are tired of this shit... Ruin Iran militarily, economically, and politically.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Drago, what is your position on the war?

Are you for or against troops in Iraq?


Drago was staff but some of the staff had similar feelings as the grunts.

The grunts want heads on pikes.

Any decent human being who spent any time at all in Afghanistan or Iraq would develop quite solid feelings about the vast majority of adult Muslim males in those countries.

And everyone wanted this guy dead.

narciso said...



The second stupidest take


https://mobile.twitter.com/NickKristof/status/1213460264856801281

Iman said...

“ Look forward to those on here telling us that putting a bounty on Trump’s head is a genius move by Iran and we should really understand their POV.“

Nah.

Paying $80M for something about half the world would gladly do for free is pretty dumb, actually.

Dave (65a95a) — 1/5/2020 @ 11:49 am

This is the sort of person they have teaching at UCI.

narciso said...

He keeps splitting atoms with his mind, if he isnt the walter mitty character his name is dan.

narciso said...

Another fusion dupe


https://mobile.twitter.com/johnddavidson/status/1213882016166481921

Paul said...

Michael K said...

"Familiarize yourself with the postwar Strategic Bombing survey.

What didn't work was daylight precision bombing"

I'm well familiar with it. What it did do was inhibit Nazi Germany from manufacturing enough of anything to keep all the military at 100 percent. Without those raids Germany would have produced many times what they did.

Our only mistake was not targeting POL (Petroleum, Oil, Lubricants) early.. we did not start till almost mid 1944. Also we didn't go after bottlenecks like ball bearings. If Schweinfurt would have been bombed both day and night (Brits by night, US by day) within 3 days there would have been no Schweinfurt. The very thing Albert Spear was afraid would happen. We did not coordinate with the Brits 95 percent of the time and that was a big mistake.

Achilles said...

Paul said...
Damn right!!! Bomb bomb bomb Iran... as a late Senator once said.

We are tired of this shit... Ruin Iran militarily, economically, and politically.


Not really.

It would take us very little effort and cost to do what needs to be done. We don't need many troops. We only really need a few drones and the support of the vast majority of the population which we have. Just like in our country there is an elite in these countries that want o protect their rice bowls.

We know where the bad guys are. We just need to train them properly.

Obama taught Iran that if they were aggressive and belligerent we would send them piles of gold and cash. All they had to do was launder a bit of it back into Kerry/McCain family members. Iran got what they wanted and the deep state got what they wanted.

Trump is doing the right thing if you want peace in the region. The Solemanei killing was perfect and we could replicate this every time Iran attacks something.

BUMBLE BEE said...

C'mon people, don't you think those guys took Rose McGowan's apology to heart?

narciso said...

Magic eightball says no:



https://mobile.twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1213904269306449920

Drago said...

Achilles: "Drago was staff but some of the staff had similar feelings as the grunts."

I didnt start out as staff, naturally.

But sooner or later they turn just about everyone into a staff wienie.

Alas.

narciso said...

This is peak stupid:


https://mobile.twitter.com/cd_hooks

Paul said...

I hope so Achilles!!!

For Iran needs to be ruined. And the Iranian people need their country back.

Yancey Ward said...

What wasn't tenable was the status quo. Trump has laid down his marker here- this is what is going to happen to the people responsible in the leadership. What isn't being reported hardly at all in this instance is what the Iranian back militias have been doing to Iraqis these past few months- it has been a string car bombings and massacres that have killed thousands in just the last year.

The Iraqi government can ask the US to leave, and I think Trump will take them up on the idea readily, leaving the Iraqi govenrnment with sole responsibility for what comes after US support is withdrawn. By making the Iraqis make an actual decision, Trump is foreclosing all the criticism that would follow such a withdrawl. If Trump had announced a withdrawl a month ago, Ben Rhodes and the rest of the shit for brains foreign policy elites would be criticizing Trump leaving Iraq's government and population to the mercies, or lack thereof, of the Iranians. The ARMs of the commentariat here would be joining in, and we all know this.

The Iraqis are in control here- if they don't want the US there, then we should pack up and leave, including closing the embassy. The careless evil George W. Bush and his administration committed here cannot be overstated- I thought it was a colossal error in 2002-2003, and nothing has really changed for me except that I never thought we would still be there in 2020, and still fighting in Afghanistan. Trump should have pulled the troops out in January of 2017, and he should do it tomorrow. I guess we will see what happens. At least the status quo has been upended to some great extent.

narciso said...



Very best minds we have in the bureaucracy

https://mobile.twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1213822112047271936

Yancey Ward said...

The major change that happened was the Iraqi government simply allowing the embassy to be attacked and doing nothing about it. Trump and his advisors properly assessed what that likely means going forward- it was going to happen again and again until the embassy was overrun and the staff murdered. Something has to give- either the Iraqis have to start standing up to the Iranians, or the US is going to leave them on their own. I guess the Iraqi parliament has made its decision- so be it.

narciso said...

Suleimani held the shotgun in the last iraqi government.

Seeing Red said...

There are those who believe the death penalty has no deterrent effect. I am not one of them. It's like trying to prove a negative. But, as I said, retribution alone is justification.

Class Sunstein wrote about that. Came to the conclusion it saves 13 people for every death.

Browndog said...

I'm all for leaving Iraq as long as we turn that $500B fortress the State Dept. calls an embassy to ruble before we leave.

Lewis Wetzel said...

This morning senator Chris Van Hollen (D Maryland) told Chris Wallace that if Trump acted on his 56 targets list, Trump would be guilty of war crimes. So, the Iranians know that the Dems have their back.

Inga said...

And now we learn that one American service member and two DOD contractors were killed in an retaliatory strike in Kenya. Who was the idiot last night in the Cafe thread, that was so sure no more American lives would be lost because of our powerful firepower?

Browndog said...

The only people that voted in the Iraqi parliament were the Iranian backed Shi'ite factions.

The Kurd and Sunni factions boycotted the vote.

So, if you want to say "the Iraqis want us to leave"..ok.

Yancey Ward said...

American service member and contractors were being killed last month, too, Inga- and the month before that and the month before that. That three more are dead is nothing new.

narciso said...

True we know what the iranians did with the other enbassy, they turned into a quds training base.

Seeing Red said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

Trump’s Suleimani Strike is More of the Same Old Losing U.S. Game Plan in the Mideast by Andrew Bacevich

Seeing Red said...

It just dawned on me 52 sites.

America remembers The Alamo and returned Pearl Harbor with Operation Hailstone and let Japan know they were touchable with Doolittle’s Raid, but we really don’t usually do that.

Trump’s going olde world to me. That they understand. But they don’t understand American psyche. It seems Trump’s outside the playbook again.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga, how many service members and civilians died during obama's tenure in all WOT operational theaters?

Number of Inga posts lamenting combat deaths and injuries during the obama admin: ZERO

Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few

Conclusion: It's obvious, isn't it?

narciso said...

More category error:


https://mobile.twitter.com/AlbertoMiguelF5/status/1213878273530384384

Seeing Red said...

Only time will tell, Farmer.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Drago you dodged the question. It's a simple yes or no. For or against? Once one soldier/advisor/contractor in there we are part of the problem and have to act with moderation. We aren't going to kill all the Iraqi/Iranian males and salt the earth, like Achilles prefers, so moderation/compromise is the only other option. Or we could just get the fuck out of there. Japan doesn't have any soldiers in Iraq. They seem to be doing fine, except for the lack of sex.

walter said...

Yancey,
Pompeo is making the rounds and as of yesterday gave a very firm no re plans to pull out.
IMHO, doing so would be best down the road, not in immediate reaction to the moment.

Rosalyn C. said...

Death to America includes Trump -- so that's not new. Getting back to their nuclear enrichment, which they hadn't really stopped anyway and claim is only for domestic energy needs, so are they threatening us now with that?

Drago said...

ARM: "Drago you dodged the question. It's a simple yes or no."

LOL

You are very much a simpleton, that's for sure.

narciso said...


A restatement:


https://mobile.twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1213902646794473474

JackWayne said...

ARM, we know that you are a pacifist when a Republican is President and a warmonger when a Democrat is President. It’s just politics. I am old enough to have lived through 3 wars where the “elite rulers” had no intention of winning. All they care about is how much of the war money goes into their back pocket. So I am anti-war when the current “elites” are running things. I’ll withhold my opinion on Trump until I see how he conducts a war. So far he has not started a war. It took Eisenhower a year to back away from Truman’s mess. It took Nixon 6 years to walk away from Kennedy/Johnson’s mess. Criticizing Trump as a poor war President is just politics. I have a dream that one day when we go to war we will have a President as murderous and skillful as Lincoln or Roosevelt. Until then, we should stop voting for wussies like Clinton, Bush and Obama.

J. Farmer said...

Only time will tell, Farmer.

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Inga said...

“American service member and contractors were being killed last month, too, Inga- and the month before that and the month before that. That three more are dead is nothing new.”

They are expendable, eh? Means nothing to you apparently.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "They are expendable, eh? Means nothing to you apparently."

Number of Inga posts lamenting combat deaths and injuries during the obama admin: ZERO

Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few

Conclusion: It's obvious, isn't it?

Seeing Red said...

We are all expendable, Inga. Like the multibillions who came before.

It’s the circle of life.

Yancey Ward said...

Walter,

The key event is what happens the next time the embassy is attacked. Will the Iraqi government lift a finger to stop it or, at the very least, not open the gate to the Green Zone and wave the militias inside? If it happens again, we will leave after litering the grounds with hundreds or thousands of dead attackers in the process.

Yancey Ward said...

Inga wrote:

"They are expendable, eh? Means nothing to you apparently."

This just proves that you have literally zero ability to read you dumb fuck.

Seeing Red said...

My mom recently passed. She has the family photos. I’m going thru them and looking at faces I don’t know. In 2-3 generations, no one will remember most of us.

We are not for the history books, but securing history is a different story.

Inga said...


“Admiral Inga, how many service members and civilians died during obama's tenure in all WOT operational theaters?

Number of Inga posts lamenting combat deaths and injuries during the obama admin: ZERO

Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few

Conclusion: It's obvious, isn't it?”

In my Military Mother’s group, every last death means something to us. They are not meant to be sacrificial lambs to the slaughter for the big mouths of a lunatic president and his cult followers....like you.

Achilles said...

Paul said...
I hope so Achilles!!!

For Iran needs to be ruined. And the Iranian people need their country back


Meh.

The Iranian people can win their own country back. If they want a no fly zone that is as far as that could possibly go.

No we just need IRGC shitheads dead. Anything that Iran moves outside it's borders should just be introduced to exotic explosives from high altitude when they show themselves.

The people who really deserve sympathy are about half the women in these countries.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "In my Military Mother’s group, every last death means something to us. They are not meant to be sacrificial lambs to the slaughter for the big mouths of a lunatic president and his cult followers....like you."

Number of Inga posts lamenting combat deaths and injuries during the obama admin: ZERO

Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few

Conclusion: It's obvious, isn't it?”

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

You dodged again. It's not a difficult question. Should we stay or should we go?

Achilles said...

Inga said...

In my Military Mother’s group, every last death means something to us. They are not meant to be sacrificial lambs to the slaughter for the big mouths of a lunatic president and his cult followers....like you.

Inga was quite vocal in her defense of Obama's numerous wars.

Or the fact that Obama was clearly trying to get as many of us killed as possible with his ROE's.

Because she doesn't give a shit about service people.

She just pretends to.

Because she is a piece of shit.

Inga said...

“Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few”

Name one, you lunatic.

Drago said...

Achilles: "Inga was quite vocal in her defense of Obama's numerous wars."

Inga defended Bowe Bergdahl and his helping the Taliban more effectively kill US soldiers.

Obama called him a hero. In the Rose Garden.

There are 5 families whose sons were killed because of Bergdahl...and Inga and her lefty pals called him a literal hero.

Can you imagine what those 5 military mothers would feel reading Ingas and obamas praise of the traitor who helped the Taliban kill their sons?

Not that Inga cares in the slightest. They were probably Trump voters anyway.

Drago said...

Inga, give us one post in the 8 years of obama where you lamented the combat deaths on his watch.

Achilles said...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
You dodged again. It's not a difficult question. Should we stay or should we go?

You know that question doesn't have an easy yes or no answer you piece of shit.

Which is exactly why you didn't say anything about the absolute failure Obama was.

There are no easy or good answers in the world. If we pull out completely millions of people die like when Democrats betrayed the people of Vietnam and Cambodia.

If we stay for generations like South Korea we get massive benefits that nobody wants to talk about.

And in the end there is only one constant:

Democrats only care about their power over other people.

Because you and your friends are terrible people. The masks are off.

gadfly said...

David Petraeus may not be the best authority to cite when assessing Trump's ability to reason. He spent forever as Commanding General in Afghanistan, accomplishing nothing except ruining his reputation by engaging in hanky-panky with his official biographer, Paula Broadwell.

So President Obama supposedly ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden at the Arab's hideout in Abbottabad shortly before Petraeus was appointed CIA chief by the President. Fact is that the all-time most famous terrorist was not seen alive or heard after December 2011. The person actually killed at the (OBL?) complex is unknown since the body was disposed into the sea.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“Number of Inga posts lamenting the deaths of terrorists: Quite a few”

Name one, you lunatic.

How awful can you be?

This entire thread and several before it is you lamenting that Sulamanei was killed.

Dave Begley said...

WaPO Headline: QS's body returns to Iraq for funeral.

Fake News. There was no body. It was vaporized. Just a ring was left.

Drago said...

Admiral Inga: "Name one, you lunatic."

You've spent several days criticizing the killing of the guy directly responsible for the deaths and injuries of thousands of American soldiers AND who was directly responsible for the planned (not spontaneous) attack (not protest) at Benghazi.

Inga literally also defended the abandonment and cover up of what happened at Benghazi.

In Ingas defense, she doesnt remember a single thing she said more than 15 minutes ago.

Original Mike said...

"The Kurd and Sunni factions boycotted the vote."

Pussies.

narciso said...

We dont really target zawahiri, who grew franchises from syria to equatorial africa, nusra front boko haram

Inga said...

“This entire thread and several before it is you lamenting that Sulamanei was killed.”

Are you insane? I don’t lament his death, I lament the deaths that Trumps rash decision will cause. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You seem to have lost your way and I doubt you’ll find your way back. I lament you.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“American service member and contractors were being killed last month, too, Inga- and the month before that and the month before that. That three more are dead is nothing new.”

They are expendable, eh? Means nothing to you apparently.

I remember you and all your lefty friends agreeing with Markos Moulitsas about how the death of those contractors means nothing to you.

But Bush was president then.

Seeing Red said...

A pair of US and UK spy planes were spotted operating in the Middle East today

The US Air Force RC-R135W 'Rivet Joint' was spotted circling west of Lebanon

An RAF Sentinel R1 was tracked from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus to Jordan

Both aircraft can provide early warning for possible missile attacks in the region

Drago said...

The Poor Man's LLR-lefty Chuck gadfly: "
David Petraeus may not be the best authority to cite when assessing Trump's ability to reason."

Yeah, some jerk who cant even run his own blog offers up that one.

Go back over to democrat underground gadfly, where your "insight" is mire appreciated.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“This entire thread and several before it is you lamenting that Sulamanei was killed.”

Are you insane? I don’t lament his death, I lament the deaths that Trumps rash decision will cause. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You seem to have lost your way and I doubt you’ll find your way back. I lament you.

Obama shipped the people who attacked us pallets of cash.

Obama literally funded our enemies.

Obama literally paid for these attacks you only care about now because we killed Sulamanei.

Fuck you.

War.

Seeing Red said...

What makes you think that decision was rash?

If anything, the restraint shown allowed Soleimani to feel emboldened.

Soleimani didn’t have to be in Iraq. He chose to be.

Howard said...

Okay so now you people are saying that starting a war with Iran will be good. You now support more adventurous endless war. I thought the attack on the Iranian general was to prevent War, at least that's what Dear Leaderhosen said.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I don't get why people here try to argue by posting links or quotes where someone has some opinion as if that's somehow more than just another opinion. Write your own arguments with facts and reason that you think might convince someone. A quote of someone just stating an opinion without that is lame. Appeals to authority are worthless, becuase "experts" have a very bad record, especially on this stuff.

Drago said...

The Very Confused Admiral Inga: "Are you insane? I don’t lament his death, I lament the deaths that Trumps rash decision will cause."

Inga laments Soleimani's death.

Period.

Inga thinks she can trade off her supposed daughters service to assign to herself undeserved moral authority over actual service members and the military families harmed by Soleimani.

The good news of course is that all the masks are off now and there is no going back because its all there on the record.

Which is a good thing.

Howard said...

The next-man-up is saying that the targets will be American military. That's good I mean not good but better than you know civilian and cultural targets

Seeing Red said...

Completely wrong Howard.

The US didn’t start it. As usual, we are very late to it.

narciso said...

Illustrating something other than the shopworn narrative is important i remember aparasim 'bobby ghosh, then at time and michael ware, cheering the terrorists.

Spiros said...

Instead of killing Qasem Soleimani, the Pentagon presented Mr. Trump with several other options, including strikes against Iranian ships or missile facilities or militias backed by Iran that are operating in Iraq. Mr. Trump placed greater significance on Mr. Soleimani's life than he did on unidentified and lower status soldiers that he could have killed instead.

In a slightly different context (remember environmental law!!!), human beings attach greater significance to rescuing identified individuals from immediate peril than to preventing the loss of statistical lives. Isn't that what Mr. Trump did? Mr. Trump killed a man he knew was a violent bastard instead of killing dozens of random no-name, innocent teenagers. What's the big deal?

bagoh20 said...

"Are you insane? I don’t lament his death, I lament the deaths that Trumps rash decision will cause. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You seem to have lost your way and I doubt you’ll find your way back."

So dishonest. You would feel exactly the opposite had this been done under Obama, while myself and others here would still favor it. Bin Laden's killing is a perfect example of that.

Drago said...

Howard: "The next-man-up is saying that the targets will be American military. That's good I mean not good but better than you know civilian and cultural targets"

Howard goes to bat for the Quds force (infamous for terrorist attacks on civilians) while simultaneously musquoting Trump.

I cant imagine why the left is having difficulty winning their message wars.

Rosalyn C. said...

Inga is afraid the Iran is going to change their objectives and target more Americans.True, probably not a good time for Americans to visit the Middle East (except for Israel). Iran's objective is to be the big power in the Middle East, fighting for position against Saudi Arabia and Turkey as well, and has gone about developing its reach in Lebanon, Syrian, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, even Gaza. See: "The Shia Crescent (or Shiite Crescent) is the notionally crescent-shaped region of the Middle East where the majority population is Shia or where there is a strong Shia minority in the population. In recent years the term has come to identify areas under Iranian influence or control, as Iran has sought to unite all Shia Muslims under one banner. Areas included in the Shia Crescent include Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Yemen, and western Afghanistan.[1]" WIKI

Iran was emboldened and enriched by Obama's deal and has been making overt aggressive moves lately. There was nothing rash about Trump's decision. Too bad the American media has kept the American public in the dark for so long. People on the left in particular are clueless.

narciso said...


Ah omars bffs (but they never work with shia)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/al-shabab-terrorists-kill-us-service-member-and-two-american-contractors-in-attack-on-kenyan-airfield/

Seeing Red said...

Africa was 1998, right?

So they have to go farther afield?

Ya know, it might just be time to arm the Christians there.

narciso said...


Summarizing


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/05/sunday-talks-secretary-mike-pompeo-vs-the-media/#more-180115

walter said...

Howard said...Okay so now you people are saying that starting a war with Iran will be good.
--
Yeah, yeah! Exactly!!!

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

All the lefties here would be rejoicing if camp Hillary did this.

Inga said...

“Bin Laden's killing is a perfect example of that.”

Bin Laden was responsible for the 2, 977 deaths. Have you people completely lost your bearings? You’re lost.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Inga has Maddow figures, folks. Pay attention.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Okay so now you people are saying that starting a war with Iran will be good. You now support more adventurous endless war. I thought the attack on the Iranian general was to prevent War, at least that's what Dear Leaderhosen said.

I know you are a fucking idiot so I will try this with small words:

Killing people like Sulamanei makes war less likely.

It is not a difficult concept.

God you are stupid.

Drago said...

The Dangerously Ignorant Admiral Inga: "Bin Laden was responsible for the 2, 977 deaths. Have you people completely lost your bearings? You’re lost."

Inga attempts to downplay the deaths caused by Soleimani, which also number in the thousands.

Inga cant help herself. With every comment she confirms her pro-Soleimani views.

walter said...

Ah..so every life is sacred unless Soilyman is responsible.

Rosalyn C. said...

"Howard said...Okay so now you people are saying that starting a war with Iran will be good." I'm not saying that. I'm saying, stop the danger before it gets even stronger. You want to wait until after Iran has a nuclear bomb?

Drago said...

walter: "Ah..so every life is sacred unless Soilyman is responsible."

Inga is so dumb she confirmed the basis for bagoh20's comment in her very next comment.

Its really rather amazing.

walter said...

Drago said...With every comment she confirms her pro-Soleimani views
--
Giving her far too much credit.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Why is it OK for Iran to occupy Iraq?
Why were so many freedom fighters in Iraq and anti-Khomeini regime freedom lovers in Iran, pleased - thrilled! with Suleimani's death? The rat fucker was a killing machine. But now the hack-D press like WaPO -(the joke house organ for the corruptocrat party) - will turn the poor guy into a beloved scholar and a martyr.

Only the obnoxious assholes are unhappy with his death.

J. Farmer said...

@BleachBit-and-Hammers:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, too. That didn't make overthrowing him a good idea.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

there is a wider point, on balance, even these successful wars like the gulf war aren't worth the paper of the congressional authorization or un resolution, we save Saudi Arabia, for the bin ladens and the ksm's who were Pakistani nationals living in Kuwait,

narciso said...

so looking on this for the long view, I say this without invective, looking from the vantage point of 30 years,

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

J Farmer-
Nobody is crying over Saddam's death or his creepy sadistic sons. Yes - You can make an argument that Saddam's iron fist rule provided stability. And paved persons.
&- you are welcome to make the argument, if you must, that the Iranian general provided stability.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Seeing Red said...
The US didn’t start it.


Let's try to think this through. There is an enormous ocean and a whole continent between us and Iraq. How did 'they' start it?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 469   Newer› Newest»