Jump to content
bludog

The Killing Of Gen. Qassim Suleimani

Recommended Posts

Iran's leaders have promised retaliation.  As the escalation continues, the chances of a hot war between the US and Iran increase exponentially.

 

Many of us understood from the beginning that as soon as Trump got in enough trouble domestically, he would start a war abroad.  Trump, unpredictable and unstable, as always, can launch nuclear weapons, anytime he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The president just deliberately started a war for political gain.  The timing suggests the war, if it comes, will be well underway just before the election  There will be much angry propaganda from here and Iran, inflaming passions.   Thus provoked, many will rally behind the president, probably increasing his chances of re-election.  

 

Congress can smother Trump's presumed war by withholding funds, which is their choice, under the Constitution.

 

Article I, Section 8, specifies the powers of Congress in great detail. These powers are limited to those listed and those that are “necessary and proper” to carry them out. ... It gives Congress great authority over the executive branch, which must appeal to Congress for all of its funding.

 

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has begun.

 

In retaliation for the assassination of Gen Suleimani, Iran has launched multiple missile strikes at airbases in Iraq, housing US troops.  This comes just a few days after the Iraqi parliament voted in favor of expelling US troops.  So if the Trump team had planned to use northern Iraq as a launching area for US assaults on Iran, that option appears gone;  Unless the US bends Iraq to our will.

 

Trump has made Gen Suleimani, certainly one of the world's bad guys, into an Iranian martyr.  And possibly an anti-American inspiration for the entire Shiite world community.  There is no evidence that Suleimani was planning terrorism against the US or its interests, as the Trump administration first claimed.

 

Trump will go down in history at the very least, as having taken a warlike action, weeks after having been impeached by the House and with his trial in the Senate, still pending.

 

No matter the extent of American casualties, it might be too much to hope that Trump's response will be moderate.  But there is still a chance for de-escalation.  Iran has promised that if the US mounts a major retaliation, Iran will launch massive new attacks by all of its forces including armed forces, its many militias and Hezbollah (against Israel).

 

At this hour, there are two important, unanswered questions that could still make a difference.  What is the extent of American casualties?  And are these rocket attacks the first Iranian salvo, or the the end of their retaliation, for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bludog said:

Iran has promised that if the US mounts a major retaliation, Iran will launch massive new attacks by all of its forces including armed forces, its many militias and Hezbollah (against Israel).

 

I think Israel can handily take care of itself against Hezbollah and similar minor threats. Maybe there will be Iranian missiles sent their way, but they have the Iron Dome defense system. It's imperfect, but still quite good.

 

I worry a bit about Iran attacking oil producers across the Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia and the UAE. If oil production is seriously hurt and the price goes up, that benefits another big oil producer ... wait for it ... Russia.

 

Almost seems like that's by design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have a president of the US who is more worried about the effects of human made climate change!

Iran is the hegemonic power in the region due to the stupidity of the US. The Iranian people were once liberal secularist, so were the people in Libya and Lebanon. 

We simply cannot trust Trump, because he is an idiot and a big fat liar. 

 

The Ayatollah and with the backing of Russia stepped in of course with the help of Bashir al-Assad, say it with me know, al-Assad, the whole group of al-Assad's are killing their own people. 

They created millions of refugees who fled to nearby Jordan, the luckier ones made it to places in the EU.

 

We turned our backs on the Kurdish fighters who fought against ISIS. 

If you go to outright war with Iran, you are libel because you will be killing innocent secularist Iranians who only wish to live in peace. Once you bomb their land all bets are off.

 

To this day the Trump administration has not shown the so called imminent danger that Gen Suleimani was planning, nor how by killing him, this one man, how such a plan was stopped.

Everything Trump does seems to benefit the Russians, the Ayatollah, and Bashir al-Assad.

 

Or, I forgot, also Erdogan of Turkey where they got a nice Trump hotel. Trump is such a savvy businessman this much is clear considering how he's got his name on so much real estate, where he got his money we will never know. It's all about executive privilege. He's got executive privilege up the Wazoo /This  I'm quite sure Mitch McConnell and Bill Barr can attest to firsthand. Building the trust with their base is all we need to know. Trump is to Putin like Mussolini was to friends of Hitler. That's why they have to keep it Top Secret.

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Bolton left the WH, this 'plan' was found scribbled on a napkin found in his desk underneath a box of tissues, and old tattered copies of Jane's Defence Weekly.

 

I have no way of proving this, but it makes about as much sense as any other explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:28 PM, bludog said:

At this hour, there are two important, unanswered questions that could still make a difference.  What is the extent of American casualties?  And are these rocket attacks the first Iranian salvo, or the the end of their retaliation, for now.

 

So far it looks like there were no casualties and no "salvo".   The Iranians will no doubt seek to do us harm in the future, but that's no different from the past.  

 

Did the answers to your questions "make a difference"?

 

I'm torn on this one.  Part of me says Suleimani was the designated agent of his nation's government...not a stateless terrorist.  Any issues we had with him should have been pressed in negotiations at a government to government level, not imposed by a missile.  

 

On the other hand, Presidents have tried that (without success) since Carter.  Every year, more Americans die from Iranian actions.  Sometimes, negotiation and diplomacy don't work.

 

I expect there will be a short term improvement in Iran's behavior.  There will be fewer attacks on Americans that can be traced back to them.  But, in the long run, they are guaranteed to go for nukes at all costs.  They were probably headed in that direction anyway, but now there is no doubt.  Trump says it won't happen while he's President, but that's not something he can control.  We couldn't stop North Korea and we can't stop Iran.  

 

I much preferred Obama's approach to Iran.  Although it didn't work (yet), I think it was the only option with hope for eventual rapprochement.  Trump may save a few lives in the short term, but at the cost of destroying that hope.  Which do you give weight to?  Lives today or good relations tomorrow?

Share this post


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

Did the answers to your questions "make a difference"?

 

They made a big difference.

 

The way it unfolded, the Iranian retaliation was possibly the best outcome.  Whether it was because our personnel took shelter or because the retaliatory attacks were meant to be minimally destructive, the result was, no one was harmed.  And the Iranian rocket salvo was not prolonged.  The US suffered no real consequences in the short run, and Iran saved face. These factors defused a war in the making ...  for now.  But tensions from Suleimani's assassination are still simmering and this may not be over yet.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

I'm torn on this one.  Part of me says Suleimani was the designated agent of his nation's government...not a stateless terrorist.  Any issues we had with him should have been pressed in negotiations at a government to government level, not imposed by a missile.  

 

On the other hand, Presidents have tried that (without success) since Carter.  Every year, more Americans die from Iranian actions.  Sometimes, negotiation and diplomacy don't work.

 

Suleimani was responsible for many American deaths, on behalf of Iran.   Subjectively, his assassination was justified.  But objectively, it was not worth the risk of a hot war in which thousands, including our troops and civilians, would be maimed and killed.  And it was not worth the continuance of endless war for the US ...  Except for the arms manufacturers and dealers.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

On the other hand, Presidents have tried that (without success) since Carter.  Every year, more Americans die from Iranian actions.  Sometimes, negotiation and diplomacy don't work.

 

I expect there will be a short term improvement in Iran's behavior.  There will be fewer attacks on Americans that can be traced back to them.  But, in the long run, they are guaranteed to go for nukes at all costs.  They were probably headed in that direction anyway, but now there is no doubt.  Trump says it won't happen while he's President, but that's not something he can control.  We couldn't stop North Korea and we can't stop Iran.  

 

I much preferred Obama's approach to Iran.  Although it didn't work (yet), I think it was the only option with hope for eventual rapprochement. 

 

Obama's diplomacy, although not entirely successful, resulted in The Iran Nuclear Deal in which limited the Iranian program to reassure the rest of the world that it would be unable to develop nuclear weapons, in return for sanctions relief.   Under the deal, Iran unplugged two-thirds of its centrifuges, shipped out 98% of its enriched uranium and filled its plutonium production reactor with concrete.

 

The Iran Nuclear Deal represented real progress ...  Tragically, Trump scrapped it.   In addition, Trump has gutted our diplomatic corps, while increasing military spending.  Unlike North Korea, Iran, albeit under pressure of sanctions, showed a willingness to curtail it's bomb-developing activities.  There was a real chance for progress in at least that part of the Mideast and Trump squandered it.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

Trump may save a few lives in the short term, but at the cost of destroying that hope.  Which do you give weight to?  Lives today or good relations tomorrow?

 

In the long run, Trump's aversion to diplomatic negotiations, with the exception of his own grandstanding e.g. the fruitless summits with Kim Jong-un, is bound to result in impasse and more conflict;  And more death and destruction.  The killing of Suleimani will, doubtless save some lives.  But Suleimani has now become a martyr.  Even as far away as sub-Saharan Africa   https://www.thedailybeast.com/qassem-soleimanis-assassination-in-iraq-brings-vows-of-vengeance-in-africa

 

For the assassination of a top official in a foreign country to ever be justified during peacetime, he/she would have to be more evil than Suleimani was.  The killing of Suleimani will, most likely result in far more casualties than lives saved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This act by Trump was obviously a Zionist act of war and his exact philosophy of fighting Israel's endless religious war for them with our workers and their tax dollars instead of providing us health coverage.

 

The lies to justify the Zionist murder of Soleimani are evolving and contradictory, as Zionist lies always are.

 

And many wonder why Israel's enemies are angry at us.  But they think we have to fight for Israel or we suffer God's wrath, such idiots.

 

There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man babbling and blubbering about a sky zombie, chosen people, and chosen land, and making decisions with our lives and tax dollars from that.

 

Trump-KIPPAHmeme1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump says the Iran Nuclear Deal falls short of addressing Iran's regional behavior or its missile program.   A deal he has called "disastrous".

 

Here is what the deal accomplished:

=========================================================================================================================

IRAN-DEAL-CARD-2-centrifuges.jpg

IRAN-DEAL-chart-1.jpg

 

IRAN-DEAL-chart-1b.jpg

=========================================================================================================================

 

The Iran Nuclear Deal represented excellent progress, all but eliminating Iran's ability to develop a bomb.  If Trump was dissatisfied with Iran's regional behavior and rocket advancement, why didn't he keep the excellent Nuclear deal and negotiate on the items he wanted to see change?

 

It would appear that after having accomplished nothing by scrapping the deal, Trump decided an assassination of a bad guy would be best and he waited until he got in trouble with impeachment, before deciding to go through with it.  In the long run, scrapping the Iran Nuclear Deal could result in the death of millions.  Whereas killing Suleimani was a highly provocative act, possibly saving a few in the short run while inflaming the passions of war in the long haul.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bludog said:

Trump says the Iran Nuclear Deal falls short of addressing Iran's regional behavior or its missile program.   A deal he has called "disastrous".

 

Here is what the deal accomplished:

=========================================================================================================================

IRAN-DEAL-CARD-2-centrifuges.jpg

IRAN-DEAL-chart-1.jpg

 

IRAN-DEAL-chart-1b.jpg

=========================================================================================================================

 

The Iran Nuclear Deal represented excellent progress, all but eliminating Iran's ability to develop a bomb.  If Trump was dissatisfied with Iran's regional behavior and rocket advancement, why didn't he keep the excellent Nuclear deal and negotiate on the items he wanted to see change?

 

It would appear that after having accomplished nothing by scrapping the deal, Trump decided an assassination of a bad guy would be best and he waited until he got in trouble with impeachment, before deciding to go through with it.  In the long run, scrapping the Iran Nuclear Deal could result in the death of millions.  Whereas killing Suleimani was a highly provocative act, possibly saving a few in the short run while inflaming the passions of war in the long haul.

 

 

 

Thank you for pointing that out and that further buttresses my contention that Trump is waging war by the kippah.

 

Trump-KIPPAHmeme1.jpg
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

 

Thank you for pointing that out and that further buttresses my contention that Trump is waging war by the kippah.

 

Trump-KIPPAHmeme1.jpg
 

 

 

Setting Iran free to develop nukes again, was hardly a Zionist act.  Scrapping the Iran Nuclear Deal rendered Israel a far less safe nation. 

Share this post


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

 

Setting Iran free to develop nukes again, was hardly a Zionist act.  Scrapping the Iran Nuclear Deal rendered Israel a far less safe nation. 

 

 

Trump ending the nuclear deal with Iran was a hostile act of Zionism and not meant to benefit Iran.

 

Furthermore your statement implies Iranian aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

Trump ending the nuclear deal with Iran was a hostile act of Zionism

 

It doesn't make sense.  Where's the evidence? 

 

3 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

and not meant to benefit Iran.

 

Benefited nobody.

 

4 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

Furthermore your statement implies Iranian aggression.

 

In regard to nukes?  It remains to be seen.  Otherwise, Iran has been one of the more aggressive, destabilizing forces in the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

It doesn't make sense.  Where's the evidence? 

 

 

 

 

It was political. It painted Iran as in violation and unworthy of the agreement, and dangerous, Israel's goal in the World arena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WillFranklin said:

It was political. It painted Iran as in violation and unworthy of the agreement, and dangerous, Israel's goal in the World arena.

 

Farfetched and I don't buy it.

 

From a factual, realistic perspective, Trump's abandonment of the Iran Nuclear Agreement left Israel a far more dangerous place in which to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

Farfetched and I don't buy it.

 

From a factual, realistic perspective, Trump's abandonment of the Iran Nuclear Agreement left Israel a far more dangerous place in which to live.

 

Then you forgot their narrative all along.

 

The Zionists constantly painted Iran as in violation of the deal, and said that the deal itself made nuclear weapons more possible as well.

 

You think I wasn't listening and taking notes?

Share this post


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

The Zionists constantly painted Iran as in violation of the deal, and that the deal itself made nuclear weapons more possible as well.

 

This has nothing to do with Trump scrapping the deal and not bothering to negotiate a better one.  What good is a geopolitical position to Israel if it brings them closer to being the victims of nuclear holocaust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bludog said:

 

This has nothing to do with Trump scrapping the deal and not bothering to negotiate a better one.  What good is a geopolitical position to Israel if it brings them closer to being the victims of nuclear holocaust?

 

Trump is part and parcel to the Zionists and *wants* war with Iran. He knows we spend more than the next ten on military. He wants to use it to fight for Israel.

 

Iran wants peace but Israel wants the globe.

Share this post


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

Israel wants the globe.

 

Evidence?

 

1 hour ago, WillFranklin said:

Iran wants peace

 

Iran's leaders use some of the most bellicose language anywhere in the world.  They have engaged in saber rattling for the last 40 years.  They have waged one of the most destructive wars of recent times, against Iraq.

 

Iran's leaders vow vengeance and call for chants of "Death to America"?   And they have shown how little they want peace buy holding Americans hostage.  Iran has sponsored terrorism and assassinations.  Iran has the 14th largest military in the world.  And, since Trump scrapped the Iran Nuclear Agreement, they have vowed to commit all efforts to develop a nuclear bomb.

 

1 hour ago, WillFranklin said:

Trump is part and parcel to the Zionists and *wants* war with Iran. He knows we spend more than the next ten on military.  He wants to use it to fight for Israel.

 

Confusing Zionism with US internal politics and the proven electoral benefits to a president at war.   True, Iran is one of the many enemies of Israel in the Mideast.  The main purpose of any war against Iran, by Trump would be for internal political benefit in the US.

 

One of Trump's many peculiarities is frequent projection.  Trump once claimed that Obama, if his popularity fell far enough, would start a war with Iran.  Trump's prediction fell short.  But that is exactly what Trump is doing now.  He is taking his own advice and courting war with Iran, for political gain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/what-trump-has-said-about-iran-what-it-means-now/?arc404=true

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the murder of Soleimani has destabilized Iran, and made them appear dangerous to those who are uneducated, and that was Trump's Zionist intention.

Share this post


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

The  Bible.

 

Surely you jest. 

 

Nevertheless.  Although under nearly constant attack, First Testament Israel never achieved empire anything near at least a half-dozen others in the Mideast region of the ancient world.  Assyria, Egypt, Hittites, Phoenicia, Ancient Iran, Babylonia.  And that's to say nothing of even larger empires, outside the Mideast region like the Roman Empire, or the Mongols, under Genghis Khan, for instance.   In modern times, the British Empire, Soviet Union, US world domination and brief Nazi Reich.

 

Neither in biblical or modern times has Israel ever remotely exhibited a lust for world domination or even modest empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...