US threaten Iran with pre-emptive strike

I think Bush did use the latter once, unaware of its connotations. Americans often seem unfamiliar with it, although it certainly at least used to be common in Canada.2xp!

Pretty sure the same is true of British people and the J-word.

Tbh, I thought of "Brit" as sort of like "Canuck" - weirdly informal for an official statement by a Cabinet member but not actually pejorative or insulting.

xp Oh, I heard both of them a lot as a kid. Lucky us.

Didn't know there was some Irish Republicanism connotation.

I only found out in recent years about the J-Word being a slur. But you could probably count on your hand the population of the Japanese diaspora of northern England.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/media/images/79426000/jpg/_79426070_martinbbc.jpg

I always find it jarring coming from the mouths of US politicians, though plenty of them have flirted with Irish Republicanism in order to win some Irish American votes.

... back in the day that is, during the Troubles.

oh ok on the slurs

tried searching for a Churchill rant about "the frogs" but couldn't find a speech (as opposed to private conversation)

Haberman, of course, shares the byline on a story w/the following headline: "For Trump, a Risky Decision Other Presidents Had Avoided."

that's one way of putting it I guess

For MIlosevic, a Bold Project Other Presidents Shied Away From

Intention matters. I don't know anyone in North America who thinks 'Brit' is a slur or who is even remotely aware of its Irish Republican connotations. See also: 'cunt'.

xps

Britpop soon to be renamed albionboogie

1. I’ve had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I’ve learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “razor thin”.

— Rukmini Callimachi (@rcallimachi) January 4, 2020

Repeated strongly worded assertions are more important in the public mind than evidence.

on the other bit of the statement i think it was stephen bush or possibly alex harrowell pointing out that even within the context of Brexit the military/defence alignment has been more and more an Anglo-French one, but that the Brexit rhetoric has increasingly been about US/UK alignment without any real substance behind it.

seems this will be one of a number of areas where UK gov rhetoric comes up against practicality.

a number of people understandably saying that UK will throw their lot in with the US no matter what for a trade deal, but these org arrangements are not so easily unwound.

One of the interesting subplots of the UK post-June 2016 is the rhetorical "immediate visit to Trump/state visit for Trump/we are so close with Trump" and the reality of continuing and deepening UK-FR defence co-operation and that G7 summit.

— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) January 3, 2020

I can't think of a time when the political posture in FP and the policy reality have been quite so far apart which is one reason I was v anxious about us ending up being dragged into a disaster during the election.

— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) January 3, 2020

Got to love this 'an attack is being planned but if we kill an individual person it won't happen' reasoning.

he had all the logistics memorised you see, and only he knew them. the fatal flaw in his plan, every evildoer has one.

What's the nature of the relationship between Russia and Iran at the moment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbvxP08FlMs

xp

Good question!

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/12/china-russia-iran-joint-naval-drills-191227183505159.html

And like how does the Russia - Syria - Turkey - Iran deal work? I need to read a book or two about this. My current understanding is Putin does deals with all these to keep them sweet but they don't all get on together?

.64/ BREAKING: #Iraqi parliament votes to expel #US forces from #Iraq.

— Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) January 5, 2020

That was on the cards.

Guess we should pack up and go

It’s the government, rather than Parliament, that decides but it’s certainly on the cards.

Abdul-Mahdi has said Suleimani was in Iraq to discuss a Saudi offer to de-escalate - which potentially leaves open the idea that he was lured into a trap by KSA.

They are good at luring people into death traps.

BAGHDAD — Lawmakers in Iraq voted on Sunday to require the government to end the presence of American troops in the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil.

The decision to heed the demands of angry Shiite factions and politicians came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the bill. But since he drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, there was little doubt he would sign it.

Although the vote was 170-0 in Parliament, many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend the session and did not vote, showing the division in Parliament on the demands to oust American troops. While groups that grew out of Shiite militia organizations have pushed hard for the expulsion, Sunni Muslim factions and the Kurds wanted the United States to stay.

Good work, USA.

Congratulations, Mr. President, with one reckless move, you have ceded Iraq to Iran, put our soldiers and our allies at greater risk, given ISIS a reprieve, united a divided Iran which will now revive its nuclear weapons program. Well done, Sir.
https://t.co/SlA9NQEPYf

— Richard Stengel (@stengel) January 5, 2020

Vista aérea del multitudinario funeral de Qassem #Soleimani. Realmente impresiona la magnitud del mismo. pic.twitter.com/3fWF5avhuU

— Radio Jai (@fmjai) January 5, 2020

what is going on here I thought they hated this guy. I thought he was Harvey Weinstein times 100

i said we're getting out of iraq, and we are. after this "thing", which lying democrats want to call war, we'll have both iraq and iran. we'll bottle the oil, and leave both. this is how business really gets done. your negativity is just quitter talk, stengel. xp

it seems Iran's got some very long bridges

i don’t understand why we’re still talking about isis when president donald j. trump has announced their total defeat six or seven times already at this point

why won’t these guys take a fuckin’ hint

Art and cultural artifacts that have stood the test of time like this should never be destroyed intentionally. They are some of our last connections with the past and are edifying for all humanity.

— A Flock of Seagals (@ASegals) January 5, 2020

luv2see the potus threatening war crimes on twitter

He's probably going to email surveys to his supporters to choose the next strike target

i've always had trouble resolving my thoughts about pulling troops out of iraq.

like many people (most here?) my first thought is that i would like to see a minimum US presence in Iraq, for reasons so obvious and familiar they don't bear repeating.

but when that possibility becomes real, like right now, the repercussions are also clear. the stengel tweet above outlines the problem. a susan rice op-ed published yesterday (before the parliamentary vote) concurs:

"The government in Baghdad has declared the killing a violation of the terms of the American military presence in Iraq. We will face mounting pressure to withdraw our military and diplomatic personnel from the country. If we leave, the United States will suffer a major strategic defeat: Iran will justifiably claim victory, and the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds."

but there will always be strong reasons not to leave - it's called a forever war for a good reason. what is the scenario which leads to the united states pulling out troops without instigating some chaos? a gradual, measured pull-out that is predicated on "stability" in the middle east? that sounds like the obama plan from 2009-2016 (which, admittedly, seems a hell of a lot better than whatever the "plan" is now). and of course, it would be much better to have the support of allies through all this.

in the end, i always end up just thinking of bullshit like "War muddies the river / And getting out we're dirtier than getting in", but yeah, that doesn't clarify things much either.

I don't think there's a good way to get out, nor is there a justification for staying.

Iran just announced they’re ending all commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal

nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon, so it make perfect sense to seek them when you are endlessly threatened by a very powerful country. once you have that defensive strength, it opens up strategic possibilities on offense, too.

"the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds"

this^^^ is an argument that needs some elements fills in pretty urgently: iran is not only extremely hostile to isis politically and religiously, wasn't it at the forefront of its military defeat on the ground?

Yep, but the US will go back to funding them.

xp

nuclear weapons are the ultimate strategic advantage canceler. if you have one, either as a nation or a non-state actor, you put yourself on the same level as the elite group of crazy asshole nations. why are they crazy assholes? because that's the cost of membership - in order for nukes to be a functional deterrent, you have to have at least one crazy asshole working at a high level in your government who will legitimately frighten the other countries. what kind of person would even think of launching a nuke in any direction? if you connected with a city you'd obliterate tens of thousands of civilians immediately, many more in the years afterward. what if they start hiding underground, in other cities? the crazy asshole nations have a solution - bunker buster nukes. "what if we could increase our total civ kills by expanding the playing field, as it were? in the past we have been limited by the ground. but in this nuclear world war, we're taking the battle underground." *drone army audio output: "Hoo-Ra-a-a-a-a-y" in perfect synchronization*

there's a big incentive for every other country to join the nuclear ranks, and there's a big incentive for nuclear countries to feature crazy assholes who might just do it.

In order for nukes to be a functional deterrent, you have to have at least one crazy asshole working at a high level in your government who will legitimately frighten the other countries.

Nixon agreed!

thanks donald, very cool!

Isis is a fascist death cult that sought to genocide Shias. The group was an existential threat to the region. Soleimani is viewed as a superhero for leading the fight against the Middle East version of Nazis. That’s who Trump assassinated. https://t.co/AEy2lsvj7z

— Rania Khalek (@RaniaKhalek) January 5, 2020

off the charts bs propaganda going on there love the "thank you soleimani for keeping us safe" comments in the thread

also wtf

Yep, but the US will go back to funding them.

― ShariVari, Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:39 PM (nineteen minutes ago)