Sign in to follow this  
NeuroTypical

Baghdad embassy attack and response

Recommended Posts

Current events warrant a little understanding. 

1. Iranian backed militias have been causing trouble in Iraq.
2. US airstrikes against these militias killed some of them.
3. Iranians stirring up trouble in Iraq provoke folks to mount a serious attack on our Embassy.  Like a several day long attack with fire and explosions and rioting.  Watch some of the available videoSee some of the aftermath picturesRead the Wiki.  No American deaths. 
4. Remember back to what happened in Benghazi under Sec of State Hillary Clinton's watch, where the ambassador and several other Americans were killed.  Remember one of Trump's campaign promises was no more Benghazis.  
5. Trump orders the strike that kills Iranian military commander, and then tweets an American flag. 

Something to consider: If you hear folks worrying about Trump rushing to war by killing Iranian Quds force commander Major General Soleimani, ask yourself why he was in Iraq trying to kill Americans.  Ask yourself what a good word is to describe a situation where a nation sends a military force into another nation to attack a third nation's embassy.  Then ask yourself whether "unprovoked rushing into war" are good words to describe what Trump is doing.

Yes, it's an election year.  Yes, one tactic to win re-election is to start a big melodramatic war to occupy the nation's attention.  Ask yourself if that's what is happening here, or if something else is happening.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buck Showalter was once ripped apart for running up the score as his team was stealing bases and taking extra bases while they were up by double digits.

In the post game press conference, his answer was simple: “When the other team stops trying to come back, I’ll stop trying to score....”

Regardless of who perpetrated 9/11 or what ideology they followed, the “memory” that is being referenced is that there are bad people out there....people whose SOLE existence is wrapped up in perpetrating evil, by proxy, giving them the upper hand.

Regardless of where he fits in the realm of ties to 9/11, if any at all, Quasem Soleimani was one of the most evil terrorists walking the planet, responsible for the loss of hundreds of American lives. Should we (America) have waited until he killed more??? How many more then???? What’s an acceptable number of lives lost before he deserves to be hunted???

We will never know how many lives Quasem’s death has saved.

But I will never forget what treating stone cold terrorists like they are inconsequential or incapable of mass destruction landed us. And if the vaporizing of Quasem prevented the loss of even ONE more American life, I’m good with it.

It’s hard for me to fathom that ANY American citizen WOULDNT be.

When they stop trying to come back, only THEN should we stop trying to win...and not a minute sooner.

 

(Language alert in the article)

You said you'd never forget September 11. You lied.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/you-said-youd-never-forget-september-11-you-lied/

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

When you hear folks worrying about Trump rushing to war by killing Iranian Quds force commander Major General Soleimani, ask yourself why he was in Iraq trying to kill Americans. 

I've got a better question.  Why are Americans still in Iraq in the first place?

there....people whose SOLE existence is wrapped up in perpetrating evil, by proxy, giving them the upper hand.

The US has been arming and supporting terrorists groups and brutal dictators in that region for decades.    Why is that OK?

Also, Britian and the CIA overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran and installed a brutal dictator for the sake of British and US oil companies.  All of this has been declassified.  

This was the main factor leading to the Iran revolution in 1979.

Iran isn't the only one who has been perpetuating evil in the region.  Our dirty little hands are all over it.

We can't even figure out who the good guys are and who we are supporting.   We attack ISIS and condemn Iran and Assad for doing the same thing.

Assad has done nothing to the US, but we still have been raging war against him too.

This isn't a war between good and evil; this is a war between evil and evil and we can't seem to decide who to support or which side we are on.

I have a noble idea.  How about an exit strategy?  Let's find a way to get ourselves out.

Also, I don't buy the claim that if we get out that the war will come here.  9/11 didn't happen to Switzerland or Japan.  Why do you think that is?  

Even if the war did come here, get in, strike fast, strike hard, AND GET OUT.

Don't pretend that the US is the good force over there fighting evil.    We have done plenty to stir the hornet's nest and most of it wasn't done for noble causes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

I've got a better question.  Why are Americans still in Iraq in the first place?

 

The US has been arming and supporting terrorists groups and brutal dictators in that region for decades.    Why is that OK?

Also, Britian and the CIA overthrew the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iran and installed a brutal dictator for the sake of British and US oil companies.  All of this has been declassified.  

This was the main factor leading to the Iran revolution in 1979.

Iran isn't the only one who has been perpetuating evil in the region.  Our dirty little hands are all over it.

We can't even figure out who the good guys are and who we are supporting.   We attack ISIS and condemn Iran and Assad for doing the same thing.

Assad has done nothing to the US, but we still have been raging war against him too.

This isn't a war between good and evil; this is a war between evil and evil and we can't seem to decide who to support or which side we are on.

I have a noble idea.  How about an exit strategy?  Let's find a way to get ourselves out.

Also, I don't buy the claim that if we get out that the war will come here.  9/11 didn't happen to Switzerland or Japan.  Why do you think that is?  

Even if the war did come here, get in, strike fast, strike hard, AND GET OUT.

Don't pretend that the US is the good force over there fighting evil.    We have done plenty to stir the hornet's nest and most of it wasn't done for noble causes.

 

 

My understanding is that we were fully out of Iraq (other than embassy security, maybe some isolated training missions, etc) for a time around 2010-ish; and then they asked us to come back in to save them from ISIS and the Obama administration indulged them.

Otherwise:  yes, we’ve been trying to keep the lid on that region for fifty years because *everyone* (not just us) needed a stable energy supply; and now that we don’t need their oil anymore (thanks, fracking!) I’m happy to walk away from it all, embargo the heck out of the petrostates, and let nature take its course.  

Except that a) I like Israel for the fact that it’s about the only nation in the region that spent the last few decades actually building stuff rather than exploiting its own people and blaming America for it; so I don’t mind launching a few dozen cruise missiles every now and then if it keeps them safe; and b) we still gotta have embassies out there; and if our embassies get attacked, I’m all for retaliating by killing the planners and perpetrators of the attack.  If some of the perpetrators happen to be agents of a nation-state . . . Too bad for them.  

But what Trump is thinking sending 3,000 more soldiers (or whatever the number is) out there, I don’t know.  It seems to me that the only ground we need to hold is our own embassy compound; and I can’t imagine it would take that many people.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding is that we were fully out of Iraq (other than embassy security, maybe some isolated training missions, etc) for a time around 2010-ish; and then they asked us to come back in to save them from ISIS and the Obama administration indulged them.

Your understanding is obviously wrong, because it makes things look like they're not Trump's fault.

I cannot believe that even the refrain "I Blame Bush" has been drowned out over the last three years by the shrill hatred directed toward Trump. I may well yet regret any positive feelings I have had toward Trump; but when the devil's media lapdogs unanimously condemn and vilify Trump, even while some of them praise terrorists and such, that evidence is simply too strong for me to dismiss out of hand.

What Trump has said I often find petulant, childish, embarrassing, and sometimes harmful. What Trump has done, on the other hand, has mostly been better than I could have imagined, even with a Republican candidate I would have preferred. As Joe Paterno used to say, nothing succeeds like success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

media lapdogs unanimously condemn and vilify Trump, even while some of them praise terrorists and such, that evidence is simply too strong for me to dismiss out of hand.

It (how the media treats Trump) is turning some NeverTrumpers into lukewarm supporters of Trump. Just because in politics the enemy of your enemy is a friend. They hate the media more than they hate Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It (how the media treats Trump) is turning some NeverTrumpers into lukewarm supporters of Trump. Just because in politics the enemy of your enemy is a friend. They hate the media more than they hate Trump. 

That describes me, except the word "hate" is wrong. "Distrust" would be more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

That describes me, except the word "hate" is wrong. "Distrust" would be more appropriate.

That's true. 

I've always thought there were two types of GOP NeverTrumpers. The elitist snobs, who look down on the dirty working class who supports Trump, and the church ladies, who look down on Trump because of his personal behavior. The media and the impeachment are pushing the church ladies into grudging support of him, while the elitist snobs will never support him. The good news is that both the church ladies and elitist snobs are at no more than 5% of the voting GOP. Maybe even less now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2020 at 9:23 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Current events warrant a little understanding. 

1. Iranian backed militias have been causing trouble in Iraq.  

In the middle east.

On 1/5/2020 at 9:23 AM, NeuroTypical said:

2. US airstrikes against these militias killed some of them.    

Not too fast.

Iran has made several aggressive attacks recently.  For example -  Iran sabotaged several oil tankers in the Strait of Hommuz.  US forces in the strait were buzzed by Iranian forces and even downed a US drone.  All with the US tempering responses to the point that Trump was hailed by vocal politicians - Republicans and Democrats both - and magnified by the media just a few weeks ago as weak when he ordered the US military to stand down against the downing of the drone and instead continued to use economic pressure stating that an unmanned drone and aggressions not involving an American is not a good enough reason to retaliate with military force.

Iran managed to strike an Iraqi military base in Baghdad that housed some American contractors killing several Iraqis and one American.  That was the red line.  This time, an American was killed and several Americans injured.  Trump responded by sending US airstrikes to Iranian-backed military installations in Iraq that were part of the attack in Baghdad with the approval of the Iraqi government (they were fighting with Iran against ISIS).  Iran responded with an attack on the Embassy.  Trump tweeted a THREAT against Iran.  Khamenei responded that Trump will not do anything.  Trump ordered a strike on Soleimani.  Khamenei threatened retaliation against Americans and Trump issued a WARNING to Khamenei mentioning 52 Iranian targets that will be struck if Iran does not stand down.

In any case, Soleimani is in Iraq because he orchestrated the coalition between Russia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran to fight ISIS.  Trump has declared ISIS defeated but RSII is still in operation.  Now, why Soleimani is killing Americans... that's the crux of this matter - Khameini ordered him to as part of Khamenei's displeasure against crippling US sanctions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

It should be mentioned that Soleimani has been under a UN travel restriction for several years and yet he has been going back and forth from Iran to Syria with impunity. It was about time that we took the thug out. Good riddance. 

The travel restriction was lifted by the Iran Nuclear Deal.  Did it get put back on?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The travel restriction was lifted by the Iran Nuclear Deal.  Did it get put back on?  

If it was lifted by the Obama Payoff then why was he breaking it before the pallet of cash arrived without any strings attached? He never obeyed it. Sorry, the guy was a monster and has killed many of our citizens, not sad he was snuffed out.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores

I got to spend much of the day watching news.  Yes, actual television.  I don't have television at home.

I was channel surfing between Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.  As I saw their reactions to the Iran fiasco, I discovered what everyone should have expected.  They all said why they were right without any consideration for the arguments on the other side.  Those who supported Trump before, continued to do so (for perfectly obvious reasons).  Those who opposed Trump, continued to oppose him (for perfectly obvious reasons).

One interview stood out.  A Fox News rep interviewed Tulsi Gabbard.  She held her position.  The newscaster asked some opposing questions, and eventually thanked her.  Then she interviewed an opposing views from a GOP politician.  She did the same thing to him.  At the end, you couldn't really tell which side the newscaster was on.  That's the way it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

If it was lifted by the Obama Payoff then why was he breaking it before the pallet of cash arrived without any strings attached? He never obeyed it. Sorry, the guy was a monster and has killed many of our citizens, not sad he was snuffed out.

Soleimani's restrictions were lifted by the signing of the Nuclear Deal.  It was not dependent on any "pallets of cash".  This was another one of those reasons why that Nuclear Deal was stupid.   

And yes, he never obeyed the UN restrictions before the Nuclear Deal which is why Bush and Obama both had the go-ahead to strike but never did for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Soleimani's restrictions were lifted by the signing of the Nuclear Deal.  It was not dependent on any "pallets of cash".  This was another one of those reasons why that Nuclear Deal was stupid.   

And yes, he never obeyed the UN restrictions before the Nuclear Deal which is why Bush and Obama both had the go-ahead to strike but never did for some reason.

So, it is Obama administration fault that all of this has happened? I don't think I will go down that road. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
11 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

So, it is Obama administration fault that all of this has happened? I don't think I will go down that road. lol

No, it is not Obama's fault any more than it is Trump's fault.  Iran's leaders are just plain without shame.

How would you describe this scenario?

  • A bully who thinks he's really big torments a guy who is much bigger than he is.
  • The big guy was always warned about not using his size and strength to intimidate others.  So, he hands over his lunch money every day.
  • Then his parents find out and advise him to fight back.
  • The bully is surprised.  But because of past subservience, the bully decides, "OK, that's it!  I've been nice to you before.  But now you're going down."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

So, it is Obama administration fault that all of this has happened? I don't think I will go down that road. lol

Not sure what you mean by "all of this".  If you mean it's Obama Admin's fault Soleimani was in Iraq to be targeted, then no.  Soleimani never showed he cares one wit about any agreement.  It simply means the Trump Admin can't use the "he's not allowed in Iraq" as part of the reason he got targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Not sure what you mean by "all of this".  If you mean it's Obama Admin's fault Soleimani was in Iraq to be targeted, then no.  Soleimani never showed he cares one wit about any agreement.  It simply means the Trump Admin can't use the "he's not allowed in Iraq" as part of the reason he got targeted.

I am just being glib, not serious at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... just for context on my part...

Was Trump just chilling in his office, got a call that said "Soleimani is in Baghdad right now" and then Trump pulled out a big read button and pressed it, launching a missile at him?

Or was there more discussion between him and other military leaders on what to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Fether said:

So... just for context on my part...

Was Trump just chilling in his office, got a call that said "Soleimani is in Baghdad right now" and then Trump pulled out a big read button and pressed it, launching a missile at him?

Or was there more discussion between him and other military leaders on what to do?

I was under the impression that Trump was at Mar-a-lago the day of the strike, as well as the days leading up to it. So the first scenario is probably more accurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Godless said:

I was under the impression that Trump was at Mar-a-lago the day of the strike, as well as the days leading up to it. So the first scenario is probably more accurate. 

This is not what Pompeo said.  Pompeo stated that the Pentagon has tabs on assets.  Everyday, they adjust plans on each of these assets in case they are given the order.  The President is briefed regularly on which assets they have plans for.  

When the US drone got shot down, the Pentagon apprised Trump of target status and made recommendations on a response.  Trump chose not to strike any targets.

When the American contractor got killed, the Pentagon did the same thing and made recommendations on a response.  This time, Trump chose what he felt was the appropriate targets from those presented and gave the order.  

When the Embassy got attacked, same thing happened and Trump chose Soleimani from the recommendations.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Soleimani's restrictions were lifted by the signing of the Nuclear Deal. 

Source?  I'm not saying you are wrong, but an curious about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

Source?  I'm not saying you are wrong, but an curious about this.

The JCPOA itself.  The agreement includes the removal of sanctions against persons and entities by the US and EU.

Anyway, I reviewed the agreement briefly and at a glance, I think all persons/entities listed were removed from sanctions on Implementation Day except for Soleimani whose sanctions will be removed on Transition Day (8 years from Implementation Day).  So Soleimani's activities on the RSII+1 caused the condemnation by the JCPOA signatorees.  And so, Soleimani being in Iraq was an aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Scott - We are bigger, stronger and can easily take out a piranha - but it is not a good idea to have your finger in a tank with a piranha to see what will happen next - and then when the piranha attacks - get upset about it.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Traveler said:

I agree with @Scott - We are bigger, stronger and can easily take out a piranha - but it is not a good idea to have your finger in a tank with a piranha to see what will happen next - and then when the piranha attacks - get upset about it.

 

The Traveler

I think Trump did the right thing this time by deescalating the situation. He's like the old school father who takes his belt off, yells and screams as the kids but deep inside has no intention of actually hitting them with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this