Current Affairs Iran

[BlueTX]

If it comes out to be true that Qassem was planning more attacks on the US, then I don't see any other way for the US to proceed without taking him out. If it's a lie, then Trump is the moron we all think he is.

There's zero way to know right now.

First, if the US does not unilaterally rip up the international agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons and impose sanctions not only on Iran but secondary sanctions on countries who do business with Iran then there is no reason to believe there would be this level of tension.

Secondly, if the Administration has evidence the Iranians were plotting attacks on US forces then there is no reason to withhold such information from Congress or our allies prior to acting.

Thirdly, assassinating QS cannot be seen in any other way than a declaration of war by the US against Iran. It's not logical to claim this action is preventative when the clear effect of this action will be retaliation.

Lastly, Trump is a fool and he is going to get Americans killed due to his foolishness (cue his bravado about war with Iran that conjures memory of Chaney and Rumsfeld regarding Iraq).

 

[AmericasToffee]

First, if the US does not unilaterally rip up the international agreement with Iran regarding nuclear weapons and impose sanctions not only on Iran but secondary sanctions on countries who do business with Iran then there is no reason to believe there would be this level of tension.

Secondly, if the Administration has evidence the Iranians were plotting attacks on US forces then there is no reason to withhold such information from Congress or our allies prior to acting.

Thirdly, assassinating QS cannot be seen in any other way than a declaration of war by the US against Iran. It's not logical to claim this action is preventative when the clear effect of this action will be retaliation.

Lastly, Trump is a fool and he is going to get Americans killed due to his foolishness (cue his bravado about war with Iran that conjures memory of Chaney and Rumsfeld regarding Iraq).

1) You think Qassem wouldn't continue terrorizing US forces if the deal was still in place? He's a terrorist. That's what he did. Regardless, attacking US forces and backing embassy attacks because a deal was mooted? Seems a reasonable response. It reads to me like you're excusing his work.
2) How do you know they didn't? Has that been published somewhere?
3) If the man planning attacks dies, it is preventative. Of course there will probably be blowback.
4) I don't even like the man but wait until all the facts come out.

 

[AmericasToffee]

A down the middle read:

Iran Loses Its Indispensable Man

The killing of Qassem Soleimani robs the regime of the central figure for its ambitions in the Middle East.

www.theatlantic.com

Important quote that thing entire thing hinges on to me

The United States is claiming it acted because Soleimani was making plans to attack U.S. diplomats and troops in the Middle East and because Soleimani had recently orchestrated other attacks on coalition bases in Iraq. Soleimani was at least partially, and in many cases directly, responsible for dozens if not hundreds of attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq going back to the height of the Iraq War. So unlike some other claims this administration has made, what the Trump administration is claiming here would not surprise me—to say the least—if it were indeed true.

 

[gonetomorrow]

It was done to protect Americans. Sounds like it'll put their lives more at risk - and the rest of us.

 

[Billy Dean]

1) You think Qassem wouldn't continue terrorizing US forces if the deal was still in place? He's a terrorist. That's what he did. Regardless, attacking US forces and backing embassy attacks because a deal was mooted? Seems a reasonable response. It reads to me like you're excusing his work.
2) How do you know they didn't? Has that been published somewhere?
3) If the man planning attacks dies, it is preventative. Of course there will probably be blowback.
4) I don't even like the man but wait until all the facts come out.

He’s as much a terrorist as any US Defence secretary or military general by the sounds of it.

 

[AmericasToffee]

He’s as much a terrorist as any US Defence secretary or military general by the sounds of it.

All depends on your perspective, I suppose. I'm unsure how any of you would like a president to respond if it comes out true that he was planning more attacks on the US.

He was also sanctioned by the EU, Switzerland, the UN, etc at some point.

 

[BlueTX]

1) You think Qassem wouldn't continue terrorizing US forces if the deal was still in place? He's a terrorist. That's what he did. Regardless, attacking US forces and backing embassy attacks because a deal was mooted? Seems a reasonable response. It reads to me like you're excusing his work.
2) How do you know they didn't? Has that been published somewhere?
3) If the man planning attacks dies, it is preventative. Of course there will probably be blowback.
4) I don't even like the man but wait until all the facts come out.

I did not say any such thing. I did say the US ripping up the deal an imposing crippling sanctions heightened the tensions. This is not to be confused with excusing Suleimani for decades of being an asshole. Yet the question has to be asked... why now?

Congressional leaders are all over national and social media as being in the dark about these attacks.

Using a blowtorch to lance a boil could certainly be seen as preventative.

As far as the facts coming out... We dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[AmericasToffee]

I did not say any such thing. I did say the US ripping up the deal an imposing crippling sanctions heightened the tensions. This is not to be confused with excusing Suleimani for decades of being an asshole. Yet the question has to be asked... why now?

Congressional leaders are all over national and social media as being in the dark about these attacks.

Using a blowtorch to lance a boil could certainly be seen as preventative.

As far as the facts coming out... We dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

It quite literally is in the Pentagon statement and all over the media - they're implying he was planning more attacks. We'll see if it proves true.

Last statement is tripe. Dude's a fool in my eyes and is unfit to be leader of a nation. That doesn't mean he can't make a good decision. We'll see what facts come out.

 

[BlueTX]

All depends on your perspective, I suppose. I'm unsure how any of you would like a president to respond if it comes out true that he was planning more attacks on the US.

He was also sanctioned by the EU, Switzerland, the UN, etc at some point.

Yes, indeed. Perspective is needed.

US, NATO and Israeli leaders have authorized actions seen as illegal attacks or atrocities against nations in the Middle East. Should we be accepting of their preventative assassination by Iraq, Iran, Syria or the Palestinians?

 

[AmericasToffee]

Yes, indeed. Perspective is needed.

US, NATO and Israeli leaders have authorized actions seen as illegal attacks or atrocities against nations in the Middle East. Should we be accepting of their preventative assassination by Iraq, Iran, Syria or the Palestinians?

Were any of those the same "alleged" situation of taking out a person planning to kill more? If not, it's non-sequitur. If it is, let's talk.

 

[BlueTX]

It quite literally is in the Pentagon statement and all over the media - they're implying he was planning more attacks. We'll see if it proves true.

Last statement is tripe. Dude's a fool in my eyes and is unfit to be leader of a nation. That doesn't mean he can't make a good decision. We'll see what facts come out.

I'm not questioning what Suleimani was plotting or not plotting so I believe you missed the point of what you call "tripe".

 

[AmericasToffee]

It's maddening how the views on this seem to fall along party lines. Republicans call him a genius, Democrats call him evil and unhinged - all without the full story. It's incredible.

 

[BlueTX]

Were any of those the same "alleged" situation of taking out a person planning to kill more? If not, it's non-sequitur. If it is, let's talk.

I'm not at all certain what your position is other than a suggestion of tap the brakes and let's see what the evidence is regarding QS.

I will stipulate the evidence you seemingly seek. QS is an asshole. He's responsible for loads of attacks on Americans and allies. He's plotted against America and allies for 30 years. This is not news to folks who follow news from the Middle East. He is also a highly placed member of the government in Iran.

You must know there are any number of American politicians and military leaders (or Israeli or NATO) seen in the same light by Middle Eastern states. As Americans we may not like that fact but it is common thought.

The US has just authorized the assassination of Iran's version of Dwight Eisenhower. You or I may think that comparison absurd but it's not to the Iranians. Given this, it shouldn't take a talking head on TV to tell us what is a likely outcome given this decision.

 

[Ruairi77]

It's maddening how the views on this seem to fall along party lines. Republicans call him a genius, Democrats call him evil and unhinged - all without the full story. It's incredible.

Thieres an election in November
trump needs to keep his allies sweet
this has been in the works since he left the agreement.
if further attacks were planned he should have gone through Congress.
there’s plenty ifinformation already.

 

[AmericasToffee]

I'm not at all certain what your position is other than a suggestion of tap the brakes and let's see what the evidence is regarding QS.

I will stipulate the evidence you seemingly seek. QS is an asshole. He's responsible for loads of attacks on Americans and allies. He's plotted against America and allies for 30 years. This is not news to folks who follow news from the Middle East. He is also a highly placed member of the government in Iran.

You must know there are any number of American politicians and military leaders (or Israeli or NATO) seen in the same light by Middle Eastern states. As Americans we may not like that fact but it is common thought.

The US has just authorized the assassination of Iran's version of Dwight Eisenhower. You or I may think that comparison absurd but it's not to the Iranians. Given this, it shouldn't take a talking head on TV to tell us what is a likely outcome given this decision.

That's exactly my position. Going to carry out attacks? Well, call it a risky move but I can't be too mad about it. Done to take attention off XYZ with little to no evidence of a threat? Get the fool out.

I'm also well aware of how Americans or viewed outside of the US. I am more than prepared to go either way on this issue, but not until more comes out to give me more of the story.