192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 12:25 pm
@hightor,
Am I supposed to be impressed? Those people are our enemies. You are still talking to no one. Why?
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 12:26 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
No one cares, no one replies!

Now you just called yourself no one, you feeling OK? Mr. Green You should quit while you think you are ahead.
hightor
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 01:32 pm
@coldjoint,
No one has to quit, no one's ahead, no one's here!
hightor
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 01:37 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
Am I supposed to be impressed?

No, but you should realize that not everyone agrees with "samar@samar19906".
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  3  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 01:43 pm
@hightor,
Trumps actions are part of his reelection campaign. I predicted long ago that he would start a war with Iran to enhance his election chances. As you can see it has reinvigorated his trumpies and brought in most unthinking citizens who will be with him until their kids are brought home in body bags.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 01:44 pm
This was the predictable approach for a FOX host
Quote:
“Are we now going to try to impeach and remove from office the commander-in-chief who’s just taken out one of the world’s leading terrorists? That’s quite a question, I suggest.”
It was Varney.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:01 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
This was the predictable approach for a FOX host

And a predictable response from someone who prefers our enemies and their well being over ours.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:02 pm
The Killing of Qassem Suleimani Is Tantamount to an Act of War

Quote:
On orders from President Trump, the United States killed Major General Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s élite Quds Force and the mastermind of its military operations across the Middle East, in an overnight air strike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The assassination was the boldest U.S. act in confronting Iran since the 1979 revolution, tantamount to an act of war. A brief statement from the Pentagon described it as a “decisive defensive action” designed to protect U.S. personnel abroad. But the strike represented a stunning escalation between Washington and Tehran, and it may well have the reverse effect. Iran almost certainly will want to respond in some lethal form, whether directly or through its powerful network of proxies in the region. U.S. embassies and military bases—and thousands of American personnel across the Middle East and South Asia, and potentially beyond—were instantly vulnerable. On Friday, the State Department ordered all Americans to leave Iraq.

On Friday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared three days of public mourning and warned that “harsh vengeance awaits those criminals behind martyrdom of General Suleimani.” He moved quickly to name Brigadier General Esmail Gha’ani, who had worked closely with Suleimani, as the new Quds Force commander. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s U.S.-educated Foreign Minister, who spent two years negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with the United States, called the American air strike an act of international terrorism. “The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism,” he tweeted. Iran’s state-controlled television characterized the assassination as the U.S.’s “biggest miscalculation” since the Second World War. “The people of the region will no longer allow Americans to stay,” it said.

Iran’s revolutionary regime often makes boastful threats, but the murder of Suleimani alarmed veteran U.S. military and diplomatic officials who have served in the Middle East. “It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of this,” the retired general David Petraeus, who led U.S. forces in Iraq and later served as the director of the C.I.A., told me. Suleimani was Petraeus’s nemesis during the eight-year U.S. war in Iraq. “Iran has to be in shock right now. Its version of the National Security Council will be on overdrive,” he said. “But there’s a whole universe of possibilities now, everything from proxy retaliation, kidnappings of American citizens, actions against coalition partners, even an attempt to do something in the U.S. We certainly have large force concentrations in the region, too.”

Was the U.S. attack an act of war? Douglas Silliman, who was the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq until last winter and is now the president of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, told me that the death of Suleimani was the equivalent of Iran killing the commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia. “If Iran had killed the commander of U.S. Central Command, what would we consider it to be?” he said. John Limbert, one of fifty-two Americans who were taken hostage in Iran in 1979, told me that he was happy Suleimani was gone, but quickly added, “This is not going to end well.”

Suleimani, a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows, gained notice during the eight-year war with Iraq, in the nineteen eighties. He rose through the Revolutionary Guard to become head of the Quds Force—an Iranian unit of commandos comparable to the U.S. SEALs, Delta Force, and Rangers combined—in 1998. He was the most feared and most admired military leader in the region. He famously rallied followers with flowery jihadi rhetoric about the glories of martyrdom. “The war front is mankind’s lost paradise,” Suleimani was quoted as saying, in 2009. “One type of paradise that is portrayed for mankind is streams, beautiful nymphs and greeneries. But there is another kind of paradise.” The front, he said, was “the lost paradise of the human beings.” Thousands of followers died under his leadership.

Over more than two decades, Suleimani, a Shiite, had more impact than the leaders of either Al Qaeda or ISIS, which are both Sunni movements, in shaping the face of the Middle East. To counter U.S. influence in Iraq between 2003 and 2011, he provided Iraqi militants with rockets, bombs, and explosively formed projectiles that could slice through the armor of an American M1 tank. “He has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands,” Petraeus said. The United States designated the Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, in 2007, and Suleimani was personally sanctioned for complicity in a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, in 2011. That same year, he spearheaded a campaign, now in its ninth year, to save President Bashar al-Assad’s regime after civil war erupted in Syria. Suleimani also channelled arms and aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon, orchestrating its franchise operations in other Middle Eastern countries, and aided Houthi rebels in Yemen. He cultivated militia proxies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, thousands of whose members were deployed to fight in Syria. Suleimani gained fame for taking selfies—later posted on social media—on the front lines of regional conflicts where his Quds Force and their allies were deployed. Many went viral.

“I think people in the region saw him as untouchable,” Petraeus said. The only person more powerful in Iran was the Supreme Leader. And, in the Shiite region of the Middle East, there may have been no one more powerful than Suleimani when it came to tangible impact.

“The US just killed Iran’s Patton,” Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, tweeted shortly after the Pentagon issued its statement. Silliman said that Suleimani led a “huge and largely successful strategic advance by Iran through Iraq and Syria and Lebanon.”

After initially operating in the shadows, Suleimani grew rhetorically audacious in the past decade. In 2008, as the U.S. and Iran competed for influence in Iraq, the Iranian general relayed a verbal message to Petraeus through the then Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, which said, “Dear General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan.” Suleimani’s point, Petraeus told me, was that the Americans had to deal with him—everywhere.

In 2018, Suleimani famously responded to the warning that Trump issued to the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani. Trump, after a weekend at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, tweeted, “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH.” Suleimani belittled Trump. “It is beneath the dignity of our President to respond to you,” he said, in a speech. “We are near you, where you can’t even imagine. We are ready. We are the man of this arena.”

When Suleimani was killed, Trump was at his Mar-a-Lago resort, in Palm Beach. Displaying rare restraint, he merely posted an American flag on his Twitter account.

In its statement, the Pentagon charged that Suleimani had, in recent months, orchestrated attacks on bases used by U.S. and allied nations as part of an international coalition fighting ISIS. He “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said.

Suleimani’s death capped a week of hostilities that escalated with lightning speed after a U.S. military contractor was killed in a rocket attack by Kata’ib Hezbollah, one of the most powerful Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, on December 27th. The attack was the group’s eleventh in recent weeks, the U.S. claimed. On December 29th, the Pentagon responded with five air strikes—three in Iraq and two in Syria—on Kata’ib Hezbollah’s bases. The group’s supporters responded by attacking the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which is the largest and most fortified diplomatic mission in the world.

“General Suleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week,” and the attacks on coalition bases in recent months, the Pentagon said, in its statement. It said that the assassination was aimed at deterring future Iranian assaults, noting pointedly, “The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

Kata’ib Hezbollah has been an increasingly important militia since it emerged, under Iranian tutelage, in 2004. After ISIS swept through Iraq, in 2014, it merged with dozens of other Shiite militias in the Popular Mobilization Forces to fight the Islamic State caliphate—with Iranian aid, arms, and Suleimani’s strategic advice. ISIS was the one issue on which Iran and the U.S. had common cause. Along with the rest of the P.M.F., Kata’ib Hezbollah was incorporated into the Iraqi military, in 2019, yet it continued to carry out its own operations—in defiance of the government and to the frustration of the United States. The militia has also been deployed in Syria as part of Iran’s support for the Assad regime.

The Pentagon provided no initial details on how the attack played out, but the Iranian media reported that Suleimani had just arrived at the Baghdad airport from Lebanon. The U.S. strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah and deputy chief of the P.M.F. He was “by far the most important P.M.F. leader tied to Iran,” Silliman told me. Iranian news agencies said that Suleimani and Muhandis were leaving the airport in separate cars when both were attacked by rockets fired from a U.S. helicopter. The Tasnim news agency, which has been tied to the Revolutionary Guard in the past, tweeted a photo of a bloodied hand wearing a large ring with an oval red stone, which Suleimani was often photographed wearing. The ring was how his body was identified, Iraqi officials said.

The timing was particularly awkward for the Iraqi government, which has long attempted a delicate balancing act between neighboring Iran and the United States. Since October 1st, protests have swept across the country demanding the ouster of the Prime Minister and the entire political class, and an end to corruption and economic inequality. The protests have also been noteworthy because of their unprecedented demonstrations against Iran’s influence in Iraq. In November, protesters set fire to Iranian diplomatic missions in the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala.

The U.S. killing of Suleimani and the air strikes on Kata’ib Hezbollah over the weekend are an embarrassment to Iraqi leaders and a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty. They come at a time when Baghdad is gripped by the deepest political crisis since the U.S. invasion ousted Saddam Hussein, in 2003. The Prime Minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite who spent years in exile in Iran, stepped down and is now playing only a caretaker role. There are already calls for the Iraqi parliament to demand the withdrawal of some five thousand U.S. troops—and hundreds more from more than a dozen coalition neighbors—that are still waging a campaign against ISIS insurgents. In a tweet, in Arabic, Mahdi called the assassination of Suleimani an act of aggression against the “Iraqi state, its government, and its people.” In an ominous signal to Washington, he said the killing was a “breach of the conditions for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.” The Iraqi Parliament is due to debate the U.S. military presence and vote on whether it should continue when it reconvenes, but the Prime Minister has the ultimate say as Commander-in-Chief, Silliman said.

The reaction in Washington played out largely along party lines. Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican of Arkansas and staunch Trump supporter and military veteran, tweeted that Suleimani “got what he richly deserved, and all those American soldiers who died by his hand also got what they deserved: justice.” But top Democrats warned of the fallout—and future cost in American lives. The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, of California, said that the assassination “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America—and the world—cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.” She and other Democrats charged that Trump attacked a high-level Iranian official without congressional authorization for the use of military force. Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, warned, “Such a reckless escalation of hostilities is likely a violation of Congress’s war-making authority—as well as our basing agreement with Iraq—putting U.S. forces and citizens in danger and very possibly sinking us into another disastrous war in the Middle East that the American people are not asking for and do not support.”

Ironically, Suleimani died in just the kind of covert operation that he orchestrated against the United States so often over so many years, with such deadly success. Yet, in his statement on the general’s death, Iran’s supreme leader warned, “His departure to God does not end his path or his mission.”

nyer/wright
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:05 pm
Mike Pence in 2004
Quote:
"Weapons of mass destruction have been found" [in Iraq]


The Washington DC privileged elite. They're my favorite people.
farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:09 pm
@blatham,
This entire thing brings to memory how Japan begn its invasion of Manchuria.

blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:11 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
“If Iran had killed the commander of U.S. Central Command, what would we consider it to be?”
Obvious answer here.
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:16 pm
@farmerman,
Not a piece of history I know anything at all about.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:25 pm
Quote:
Officials told the Post that Trump was also compelled to authorize the Soleimani strike due to what he viewed as negative coverage that ensued after his decision last year to call off the airstrike targeting Iran. Additionally, Trump held frustration over the details of his internal deliberations leaking out — which he felt made him looked weak, according to the officials who spoke with the Post.

Lawmakers and aides who have spoken to Trump told the Post that the President’s fixation on Benghazi and the Obama administration’s response to it also played a role into his decision.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told the Post in an interview that when he went to Mar-a-Lago on Monday, he could tell that “Benghazi has loomed large on his mind.”
TPM

Of course the ******* psychopath was worried about media coverage and appearing to be "weak".
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 02:29 pm
Quote:
Several blasts shook the Baghdad area hours after a huge funeral procession for a top Iranian general killed by a US air strike on Thursday.

A projectile hit the Green Zone near the US embassy while several more were fired north of the Iraqi capital at Balad air base, which houses US forces.

Nobody was hurt in the attacks, Iraqi security sources say.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50995792
0 Replies
 
lmur
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 03:23 pm
@hightor,
Do you sometimes feel like Jimmy Stewart's character in 'Harvey'?
georgeob1
 
  2  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 03:38 pm
@blatham,
In this post, and on the last few pages of this thread, you have provided us several examples of "analysis" of Trump's actions that are based solely on your preconceptions of Trump's inner motives, things which are most certainly unknown to you, and unverifiable in any case. The violations of your rather pretentious posturing about verifiable facts and strict logical rules of deduction are quite striking. You pretend to be a better informed and more rigorous "analyst" of political actions than the rest of us mere mortals, while your own posts routinely give the lie to that deceitful pretense. Equally bad is your routinely expressed preference for any possible damaging innuendo about Trump's possible motives in cases in which there are ample good objective reasons for his actions.

Human nature is a complex thing, and our motives for the actions we take are usually a mixture of objective reasons and entirely subjective ones arising from our inner drives. There is nothing either novel or surprising in that. However your persistent biases and selectivity in postulating motives you can't possibly know with certainty, even in the face of obvious objective ones, identifies you as a mere propagandist interested only in validating your own preconceptions. That you do this and, at the same time present yourself as a better-informed-than-the-rest-of-us as a source of fact-based logical reasoning is a bit contemptable.

You should know and do better than that.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 03:49 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Obvious answer here.

Any one in the uniform of the country they represent is a legitimate target of an enemy. That is the obvious answer.

Quote:
Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday evening that President Donald Trump had even more legal authority to eliminate Qassem Soleimani than former President Barack Obama had to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Dershowitz, speaking with host Joel Pollak and guest host John Hayward on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, dismissed arguments that Trump lacked constitutional authority to act against General Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.

Presidents have lawful authority to direct the killing of enemy combatants, explained Dershowitz.

“[Soleimani] was a combatant,” explained Dershowitz. “There’s no doubt that he fit the description of ‘combatant.’ He [was] a uniformed member of an enemy military who was actively planning to kill Americans; American soldiers and probably, as well, American civilians.”

https://www.infowars.com/dershowitz-trump-had-even-more-legal-justification-eliminating-soleimani-than-obama-had-with-osama-bin-laden/
The source is quoting Dershowitz before anyone attacks it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 04:20 pm
@lmur,
That was good.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 04:24 pm
@blatham,
I'm still chuckling that George called you pretentious. hahahahahahahahahaha
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jan, 2020 04:30 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However your persistent biases and selectivity in postulating motives you can't possibly know with certainty, even in the face of obvious objective ones, identifies you as a mere propagandist interested only in validating your own preconceptions.
I'm puzzling over how you might draw such conclusions regarding my possible inner motives.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.96 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 06:22:22