US Strike Kills Top Iranian Terror Mastermind Qassem Soleimani

[gregintenn]

23 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Some of the responses here appear eager for another war. It is concerning. 

Which responses?

[Quavodus]

If people don't like 52 targets, how about we double it to 104. 

[DaveTN]

I don’t really see anything here that makes me think anyone wants a war. I don’t think Trump wants a war either and I don’t think he will get us in one. I don’t know for sure if he said it, or someone at the WH said that he said it, but anyway. Supposedly Iran has been told that if they are involved in retaliation, we will take them out of the oil business. That will destroy their economy. Trump may do that, or he may bomb all their nuclear facilities to dust.

Iraq is obviously siding with Iran; they may become one in the same. The Iraq parliament has voted to expel us. Dang man, how many times are we going to have to take that country before they get a clue? But I don’t think Trump will try to take over there again; hopefully he’ll just hurt them if they take action against us.

As far as “eager for war”, I will say this. War should be terrible; it should be so devastating that no nation wants to take part. If you think that makes me eager; so be it. But since WWII the kinder, gentler, more humane way of fighting wars has done nothing but kill and maim our young people and create terrorists worldwide. We should make sure that everyone understands that if we are hit; we will attack and destroy our enemies with extreme prejudice. Anything less is inviting another 911.

[xtriggerman]

War in the world is a natural effect of the human condition. Trying to change that is like making a lion eat cabbage. Problem is, its like a box of chocolates.... you never know when that certain some one is destined to tickle that go button. With new weapons like the Avangard missile that carries a 2 megaton neuk  warhead traveling at 5.75 miles per second....... I'm figuring my lead time on gulping down a cocktail to toast a new "world spring" has to be re evaluated!

[Chucktshoes]

5 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Iraq is obviously siding with Iran; they may become one in the same. The Iraq parliament has voted to expel us. Dang man, how many times are we going to have to take that country before they get a clue? But I don’t think Trump will try to take over there again; hopefully he’ll just hurt them if they take action against us.

 

How many times will Islamic countries in the Middle East and Western Asia have to tell us explicitly, and in no uncertain terms, that they do not want us mucking about in their internal affairs and conflicts with other Muslim countries before WE get a clue?

 

Remember, the Iranian government that exists today does so because we deposed a democratically elected president who was not keen to ally with the US in favor of a brutal dictator who was. Then we kept him in power for over two decades. Then when the people of Iran had enough, we teamed up with the brutal dictator next door to support him in waging war against the Iranians for the next decade. 
 

Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqi parliament voting to expel the US is an opportunity. An opportunity to respect the wishes of a sovereign nation with regards to how they wish to conduct their own affairs and an opportunity to end a war that should never have been begun in the first place. 

I actually agree with your view on how to prosecute war. It should be terrible, and horrible and recognized as the last thing anyone wants. Not trying to wage it “humanely” is actually the most humane way to go about it because it should be a better deterrent. At the same time, not mucking about in other folks’s business is also another great way to not get drawn into wars as well.

I don’t pretend to be an expert ME culture or politics, but sometimes even if you don’t exactly know the right way to go about something, it is still blindingly obvious that what you are doing is wrong. Our entire approach to the ME is wrong. From occupying Iraq, to antagonizing Iran, to allying with the KSA we’re just plain doing it wrong. It’s Not just ok to recognize that and move towards correcting those mistakes, I think it’s the right thing to do. 
 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Chucktshoes

[E4 No More]

3 hours ago, btq96r said:

Smoking a guy his last two predecessors thought too risky to take out says all he needed to and removed any doubt that he is willing to strike.  No reaffirmation needed after that.

The 52 targets isn't a sign of higher thought in my mind, it's pretty childish.  I also wonder if it represents a real target deck or something he made up (his showman persona comes through often).

I guess that depends on if you think about it from your perspective or the perspective of a theocracy that's barely holding onto control that communicates with threats.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t really see anything here that makes me think anyone wants a war. I don’t think Trump wants a war either and I don’t think he will get us in one. I don’t know for sure if he said it, or someone at the WH said that he said it, but anyway. Supposedly Iran has been told that if they are involved in retaliation, we will take them out of the oil business. That will destroy their economy. Trump may do that, or he may bomb all their nuclear facilities to dust.

Iraq is obviously siding with Iran; they may become one in the same. The Iraq parliament has voted to expel us. Dang man, how many times are we going to have to take that country before they get a clue? But I don’t think Trump will try to take over there again; hopefully he’ll just hurt them if they take action against us.

As far as “eager for war”, I will say this. War should be terrible; it should be so devastating that no nation wants to take part. If you think that makes me eager; so be it. But since WWII the kinder, gentler, more humane way of fighting wars has done nothing but kill and maim our young people and create terrorists worldwide. We should make sure that everyone understands that if we are hit; we will attack and destroy our enemies with extreme prejudice. Anything less is inviting another 911.

Amen!

[E4 No More]

58 minutes ago, xtriggerman said:

War in the world is a natural effect of the human condition. Trying to change that is like making a lion eat cabbage. Problem is, its like a box of chocolates.... you never know when that certain some one is destined to tickle that go button. With new weapons like the Avangard missile that carries a 2 megaton neuk  warhead traveling at 5.75 miles per second....... I'm figuring my lead time on gulping down a cocktail to toast a new "world spring" has to be re evaluated!

There are many worse ways to go.

[Johnny Rotten]

1 hour ago, Quavodus said:

If people don't like 52 targets, how about we double it to 104. 

Let 444 set in.

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

As far as “eager for war”, I will say this. War should be terrible; it should be so devastating that no nation wants to take part. If you think that makes me eager; so be it. But since WWII the kinder, gentler, more humane way of fighting wars has done nothing but kill and maim our young people and create terrorists worldwide. We should make sure that everyone understands that if we are hit; we will attack and destroy our enemies with extreme prejudice. Anything less is inviting another 911.

I agree with all of this, and I don't think it makes you sound eager. War is awful. I don't want to get into another war with Iran. We still haven't won the Afghan war after nearly 20 years.  Even if you take out the human toll, the financial toll it's had on the US taxpayers is huge. 

In 2003 our military spend was $437B. In 2020 it's projected to be $989B. That sort of growth isn't sustainable. And it's not like we didn't have a capable military in 2003. 

 

[E4 No More]

13 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I agree with all of this, and I don't think it makes you sound eager. War is awful. I don't want to get into another war with Iran. We still haven't won the Afghan war after nearly 20 years.  Even if you take out the human toll, the financial toll it's had on the US taxpayers is huge. 

In 2003 our military spend was $437B. In 2020 it's projected to be $989B. That sort of growth isn't sustainable. And it's not like we didn't have a capable military in 2003. 

 

When was the last war with Iran?

Edited January 6, 2020 by E4 No More

[Erik88]

1 minute ago, E4 No More said:

When was the last war with Iran?

Oh I'm off your ignore list now?  I meant that I don't want to get into another war with anyone.  

[Chucktshoes]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-withdrawal/u-s-led-coalition-says-it-will-withdraw-from-iraq-letter-idUSKBN1Z520A?il=0

 

“Sir, in deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement,” read the letter. 

 

It was signed by United States Marine Corps Brigadier General William H. Seely III, commanding general of Task Force Iraq, the U.S.-led military coalition against Islamic State 

The authenticity of the letter, which was addressed to the Iraqi defense ministry’s Combined Joint Operations Baghdad, was confirmed to Reuters independently by an Iraqi military source. 

“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” it said.

[DaveTN]

Quote

In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said he could not immediately confirm its authenticity.

That's weird. A marine General would not have written a letter like that without it coming though the chain of command; starting with Trump. And Trump hasn't said anything?

 

[E4 No More]

30 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

Oh I'm off your ignore list now?  I meant that I don't want to get into another war with anyone.  

No, you're still on it but I can selectively view what I want.

[btq96r]

34 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

We still haven't won the Afghan war after nearly 20 years. 

And we never will by those terms.  We won the Afghan War (though war is a bit of a misnomer for how intense it was) somewhere between July - December 2002 after we finished chasing the last vestiges of Al Qaeda and the Taliban out of their fallback areas.  Everything after that has been the Afghan Counterinsurgency/Occupation/Peacekeeping conglomeration that got refreshed with every new commander who thought it would represent the "turning point" or something to that effect.  Forget that in that country foreigners are treated like a body fights off a virus, no matter how long it takes.

It's all these good intention missions that get us into long term problems.  If we'd just stick to the reasons and execution of war as it's supposed to be done in a judicious manner, we'd be a lot better off.

[E4 No More]

3 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

That's weird. A marine General would not have written a letter like that without it coming though the chain of command; starting with Trump. And Trump hasn't said anything?

 

Particularly a Brigadier General.

[peejman]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

I agree with all of this, and I don't think it makes you sound eager. War is awful. I don't want to get into another war with Iran. We still haven't won the Afghan war after nearly 20 years.  Even if you take out the human toll, the financial toll it's had on the US taxpayers is huge. 

In 2003 our military spend was $437B. In 2020 it's projected to be $989B. That sort of growth isn't sustainable. And it's not like we didn't have a capable military in 2003. 

 

That's only slightly more than normal inflation. Stuff doubles in price about every 20 years.

[btq96r]

5 minutes ago, peejman said:

That's only slightly more than normal inflation. Stuff doubles in price about every 20 years.

While I'm not saying this is an exact way of checking that...the jump in defense spending is from way more than inflation.  We've increased the size and scope of the military since 2003, and that ain't cheap.  We've also gotten to a cycle of accounting for the wars in the Middle East in the defense budget (where they belong) instead of as an aside through supplemental funding. 

The question is are we putting that spending to good use.

Edited January 6, 2020 by btq96r

[Erik88]

6 minutes ago, peejman said:

That's only slightly more than normal inflation. Stuff doubles in price about every 20 years.

The bottom line is that war isn't cheap. 

[peejman]

2 minutes ago, btq96r said:

While I'm not saying this is an exact way of checking that...the jump in defense spending is from way more than inflation.  We've increased the size and scope of the military since 2003, and that ain't cheap.  The question is are we putting that spending to good use.

 

Heh... I looked at the price of a gallon of milk. $2.19 in 2003, $4.07 in 2019 is what my 10 second google search found. 

If the military has increased in size during that time, then that's certain to cost more. 

[DaveTN]

 

5 minutes ago, peejman said:

Heh... I looked at the price of a gallon of milk. $2.19 in 2003, $4.07 in 2019 is what my 10 second google search found. 

If the military has increased in size during that time, then that's certain to cost more. 

Why... you think those kids might drink a lot milk?

[Morgan88]

"Now we're back to threats on Twitter, him having to have the last word because of his thin skin, and who knows what else is coming.  It's embarrassing. "

 

With each successive strike those threats take on a bit more meaning?

Morgan88

Edited January 6, 2020 by Morgan88
punctuation

[Fourtyfive]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.....does it do well in sand?

[xtriggerman]

2 hours ago, Morgan88 said:

"Now we're back to threats on Twitter, him having to have the last word because of his thin skin, and who knows what else is coming.  It's embarrassing. "

 

With each successive strike those threats take on a bit more meaning?

Morgan88

 He kinda reminds me of working special housing in a max joint once. The "bug" inmate in there would say anything thing. Sometimes it was true and sometimes not.... You cant read em.  America's adversaries who ever they are, are not about to gamble with a bug. The joe straight moderates are boringly predictable. Ha.... like the nearly year Saddam had to get his WMD's flown to Syria.

  I like his tweets tho I never bother reading anything on twitter. I could care less....  Litmus test is if it bothers a lib, its got to be good. Obviously Trump is not quite 100 percent right in the head but that is exactly who you need to combat the explosion of Liberalism in the US. All the goody 2 shoe Republicans have let the Dems run rampant in the corruption dept for way, way too long. Long live Trumpizim.....  If only to piss em all off!