Possible War with Iran

[The Feral Slasher]

Another source (again presenting for discussion, not my personal thoughts since I'm pretty ignorant on this)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

I don't know anything about the Iraqi PM but I know better than to trust the White House given current state.

I think that was the source linked in your other article. It appears possible/likely that there were earlier meetings that lead to increased attacks on US bases. We've been in a low level proxy war with Iran for some time. So it is possible he was going to discuss de-escalation and also possible he was going to discuss further attacks on US bases. Maybe both. I've never believed that he was some innocent person who isn't involved in a lot of stuff. I just don't like pretending that the U.S. is innocent in all this and claiming that he was unprovoked. Which is all beside the point of whether it was a smart strategic move

If our CIA director was in a public airport in another country and got blown up by a missile, would everyone be pointing out that he was a legitimate target who had it coming ? Because he has for sure had a hand in deaths in many countries.

[Gregg]

I guess today's lesson is that it's better to be a troll or a dick than engage in n actual conversation where one's beliefs might be criticized.

Noted.

I was only being a dick on that one comment. Not the original post or any other answers.

I certainly do not troll on the site that I love.

[Ken]

I think that was the source linked in your other article. It appears possible/likely that there were earlier meetings that lead to increased attacks on US bases. We've been in a low level proxy war with Iran for some time. So it is possible he was going to discuss de-escalation and also possible he was going to discuss further attacks on US bases. Maybe both. I've never believed that he was some innocent person who isn't involved in a lot of stuff.

I think that's a far assessment

I just don't like pretending that the U.S. is innocent in all this and claiming that he was unprovoked.

Agreed.

Which is all beside the point of whether it was a smart strategic move

That's the scary part.

If our CIA director was in a public airport in another country and got blown up by a missile, would everyone be pointing out that he was a legitimate target who had it coming ? Because he has for sure had a hand in deaths in many countries.

Interesting question, I like it. I wonder what the best course of action would be in that case.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I was only being a dick on that one comment. Not the original post or any other answers.

I certainly do not troll on the site that I love.

Then I'm left with no other reason but that you're trying to avoid criticism by withholding an opinion in a discussion you entered into and continue to participate in freely.

I always thought you were someone who could be held accountable for their actions/words. Someone who said what they believed and stood by those words no matter what.

I guess I was wrong.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm interested in reading more about this, does anyone have some material I can read to catch up?

The Wikipedia article on the drone strike has a fairly succinct summary under the Prelude section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike

[GwynnInTheHall]

Interesting question, I like it. I wonder what the best course of action would be in that case.

The best response? I don't think you could ever reach a consensus, not here and not in real life. which is unfortunate because you'd like to believe everyone's moral compass points at the very least, in a similar direction

[Sour Masher]

I was away on a family weekend trip and getting back and catching up on this thread has been illuminating. I wanted to chime in only to say that two of my mother's ex-husbands are Iranian (both Green card marriages for them, if not for my mother), and I heard many times in my younger years of the the American backed atrocities of the Iraq-Iranian war (among other things). Our history of serving our interest at the expense of Iran is indeed long, as KS and others have aptly pointed out.

I have little to add on that, but do find it curious, and wanted thoughts on, the fact that the assassination of a major leader, like our assassination of Soleimani (which I agree was little different than if someone took out Kissinger or Rumsfeld, back in the day), seems to get way more attention and outrage (if you believe the images of massive numbers of mourners for Soleimani, the response is certainly large in this case, even if some of those mourners were forced to be there) than the killing of many times more lower level fighters or even civilians. I suspect some here will agree that is kind of perverse. Most seem to think this one assassination is the thing that might tip us into a death spiral with Iran, not the killing of 27 Iranians, or all the many things mentioned in this thread, or the nine others killed with Soleimani, or hell, even the threat Trump made to blow up historic and cultural sites in Iran (and they have many amazing ones: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...93975732527112). This isn't new. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand played a major role in the start of WWI, as one example.

Is this a form of government and media control, riling up people over what the state deems a more serious affront/attack on a people? Or is there a legitimate argument that the assassination of one higher up is more worthy of plunging nations into a conflict that will kill thousands and impact millions than the many things touched on in this thread? Maybe there is. IDK.

I do not condone assassinations, including this one, but a part of my brain does wonder if it would be better if we replaced traditional warfare, with poor kids who couldn't buy their way out of service dying and civilians dying too, with a contest to see which side can assassinate whose higher ups directly involved in making decisions that negatively impact the other side. It would make more sense than rich and powerful leaders throwing bombs and boys at each other with little personal negative impact for themselves.

All of that to say, I do not agree with this move. I think it was wrong, certainly as a strategy (when not just all are other allies but even Israel is distancing itself from an action against like this, you know the US greatly misstepped). But I continue to be perplexed by the level of response such things get compared to other atrocities that seem to me worse than assassinations of higher ups with the blood of many on their hands (even if that blood comes with the jobs they have).

[nullnor]

I am starting to think the recent events were a response to the attack on Saudi oil fields. Yemen claimed responsibility but Iran would've had to been involved and if so obviously also Soleimani. I was surprised because you figure that would immediately start a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran but it didn't. attacking SA oil would certainly be a red line. and that's why you're never really going to get an answer about why Soleimani was bombed. but it's also never one reason. it's usually multiple ones. for example, Bolton testifying now. he definitely wanted Iran attacked. maybe that's Trump's way of making nice with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_A...Khurais_attack

Saudi Arabian officials said that many more drones and cruise missiles were used for the attack and originated from the north and east, and that they were of Iranian manufacture. The United States and Saudi Arabia have stated that Iran was behind the attack while France, Germany, and the United Kingdom jointly stated Iran bears responsibility for it. Iran has denied any involvement.

For example, the United States has stated it has "circumstantial evidence" that Iran launched the strike from its own soil in the form of satellite imagery which shows Iran readying drones and missiles at launch sites in Iran before Saudi oil facilities were attacked.

Late on 18 September, a U.S. official speaking to CBS News said that Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Khamenei had signed off on the attacks but only on the assurance that the method of the attack would allow Iran to deny involvement. Coupled with the Saudi evidence, the U.S. official stated that some of the attacks were launched from the Iranian Ahvaz Air Force Base, about 400 miles (640 km) from the targets, and flew through Kuwaiti air space

[Sour Masher]

And now 50 mourners dead from being trampled.

[The Feral Slasher]

And now Iran apparently attacking at least one U.S. base in Iraq

[The Feral Slasher]

And now Iran apparently attacking at least one U.S. base in Iraq

Random unconfirmed tweet says many u.s aircraft destroyed. I hope this isn't really happening or is overstated

[The Feral Slasher]

Apparently numerous missiles as well as militia attacks

[GwynnInTheHall]

But wait--I thought assassinating the General was the great deterrent?

I hope there's no loss of life in these strikes.


Trump isn't going to be able to help himself, by the weekend shit will have hit the fan and splattered all over the Middle East

[The Feral Slasher]

F-35's launched from UAE , again unconfirmed.

[The Feral Slasher]

But wait--I thought assassinating the General was the great deterrent?

I hope there's no loss of life in these strikes.


Trump isn't going to be able to help himself, by the weekend shit will have hit the fan and splattered all over the Middle East

we get to hear from him later tonight if you can bear to listen