Especially given the context of much of Congress aching for a war with Iran, and trump’s posting of a pixelated American flag in the wake of the news
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:03 (four years ago) link
assassinating soleimani was an act of war
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:05 (four years ago) link
exactlyWhat if Iran somehow assasinates Espy? Would we think “well, Iran may have had very good reasons to do that, other than wanting to start a war”?
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:07 (four years ago) link
i think what happened is that they told trum iran was not in a position to escalate and they could get this guy with minimum consequences and it would be a strong response to the embassy bombing. trump does take bigger risks than gwb or obama but also there seems to be lots of evidence that he is not interested in opening hot wars. i'm arguing here: we shouldn't jump to conclusions. i agree that this is an escalation and increases the risk of war - but it does not necessitate it. if you believe iran is a rational actor then you might even suspect that their response will be muted.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:07 (four years ago) link
Lame revive, lads
― Yeets don't fail me now (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:07 (four years ago) link
Yes, Trump's "plan" could simply be to assassinate his way to peace with Iran, right?
― An Oral History of Deez Nutz (PBKR), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:08 (four years ago) link
there are very good reasons why they might assassinate soleimani that aren't "looking to start a war."
I fully agree. Trump has been very shy of starting any wars, despite his fire-breathing rhetoric. Iran is not looking for a full scale war, either. But steps like this quite often develop a dynamic that drives itself. Neither leader feels capable of stepping back. Their entire political power has become staked on making the opponent back down, while not backing down oneself. So the game of chicken ends up in a violent head-on crash.
The siege on the US embassy in Baghdad was theater. The Iranians probably thought that it would be a safe play, making the US look bad, but essentially non-violent. They underestimated Trump's thin skin around looking bad on television. Now they must shed blood and make it clear who shed that blood, while putting just enough distance between themselves and the act to preserve deniability. Tricky, and very risky, but they will feel compelled to try it.
― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:09 (four years ago) link
luckily for them they have many theaters from which to conduct that act without doing it themselves - they could attack UAE, Saudis, Israel, US in Iraq. unlucky for them the guy in charge of terrorist operations abroad is the guy they're avenging.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:11 (four years ago) link
atm all he's done is assassinated soleimani - i haven't seen the administration making any kind of case for full out war or invasion.
That comes after Iranian retaliation.
― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:15 (four years ago) link
Who cares if he intended to start a war with Iran by assassinating their golden boy? The point is that Trump is so willfully blind to the unintended consequences of his actions that an intentional or unintentional war with Iran and the resulting carnage would be no deterrent if Trump felt (a) he had to to save his tough-guy image, and/or (b) it would help his re-election.
― An Oral History of Deez Nutz (PBKR), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:16 (four years ago) link
trump didn't plan this operation or likely suggest it
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:18 (four years ago) link
i'd be surprised if he knew who soleimani was until the JCS or whoever proposed assassinating him
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:19 (four years ago) link
I guess my point is that if the war is started recklessly as opposed to intentionally, what is the difference? It was a terrible idea either way.
― An Oral History of Deez Nutz (PBKR), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:21 (four years ago) link
like i'm sure every ilxor i hope there is no war. my reckless speculation is that iran will either retaliate through a proxy actor or do nothing obvious at all. even if you don't trust in the rationality of the trump administration you probably have some faith in the rationality of the ayatollah, who may be as concerned about what trump is trying to do as you are.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:34 (four years ago) link
regarding the "other reasons" to assassinate thing, this seems like a prime example:
"WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Friday that he ordered the operation that killed Iran’s top security and intelligence commander not just to retaliate for past attacks on Americans, but also to forestall an active effort “to kill many more” Americans, as the region braced for a possible escalation in violence.
In his first comments on the drone strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who led the powerful Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Mr. Trump suggested that the Iranian commander “got caught” preparing to hit American targets. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said a planned attack on Americans had been “imminent” before the drone strike."
but here's the thing. if that's true, why not brief congressional leaders? why tell lindsey fucking graham about it on a golf course, days ahead of time, while not telling others?
― But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:38 (four years ago) link
https://i.imgur.com/TMNUiSz.jpg
― pomenitul, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:41 (four years ago) link
what do we think soleimani was doing in baghdad? xp
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 19:45 (four years ago) link
hey Putin condemned this, thats the headline amirite? PUPPET CUTS STRINGS
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 January 2020 19:52 (four years ago) link
there should be a thread for dennis perrin tweets
― american bradass (BradNelson), Friday, January 3, 2020 1:14 PM bookmarkflaglink
We have a special filing cabinet for those
https://i.ibb.co/YPZrnRC/lumawarm-l60-heated-toilet-seat-installed-shot-light-on-1.jpg
― looking for Mon in Alderaan places (Neanderthal), Friday, 3 January 2020 20:16 (four years ago) link
― Mordy, Friday, January 3, 2020 2:45 PM (fifty minutes ago)
Is there reliable info about this? Why would you assume the answer is "planning an attack on Americans"?
― rob, Friday, 3 January 2020 20:37 (four years ago) link
if you don't trust in the rationality of the trump administration you probably have some faith in the rationality of the ayatollah
butterfly_is_this_2020.jpg
― k3vin k., Friday, 3 January 2020 20:41 (four years ago) link
bc an iran-backed militia attacked the embassy in baghdad on tuesday? xp
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 20:42 (four years ago) link
Iraq has a large number of popular militias, Hashd, which the Iraqi government formally condones and supports. Iraninan-backed Shi'ite groups are involved. Suleimani oversees this as head of Quds force. They have been coordinating for ages, this was not a secret meeting— Tony (@AntonPilgram) January 3, 2020
― calzino, Friday, 3 January 2020 20:43 (four years ago) link
I mean, is it normal practice for the US to assassinate someone as a prophylactic measure bc they are planning something? xp
― Un sang impur (Sund4r), Friday, 3 January 2020 20:47 (four years ago) link
afaiui we've been doing it for years
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 20:48 (four years ago) link
obviously tho no matter what the trump admin says or if he really was planning something he wasn't killed merely because he was planning an operation against americans during this particular meeting. that's just another "reason" trump admin is using to make the case for killing him.
― Mordy, Friday, 3 January 2020 20:50 (four years ago) link
The idea that David Sanger, or anyone really, thinks he or she knows why Trump decided to do this—and, moreover, knows it’s because of some conception of the national interest—is laughable. https://t.co/WfwRd0dONt pic.twitter.com/FVsQ8FIqv4— Isaac Chotiner (@IChotiner) January 3, 2020
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Friday, 3 January 2020 21:37 (four years ago) link
American Contractor: A Film By Clint Eastwood
― a bevy of supermodels, musicians and Lena Dunham (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 3 January 2020 21:56 (four years ago) link
"the calculus was straightforward"
not a sentence anyone should ever write about the thought processes of donald j trump
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 3 January 2020 22:02 (four years ago) link
i think trump did it to show that he can do it. the iranian answer won't be nice, that's for sure. chances for a new war in the region are 50:50, i'd guess.
― walking towards the sun since 2007 (alex in mainhattan), Friday, 3 January 2020 22:15 (four years ago) link
Mordy the US has been openly assassinating military chiefs in the middle east as part of the GWOT but hasn't it always been non-state actors until now?
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Friday, 3 January 2020 22:46 (four years ago) link
Yep.
Here's the thing, the IRGC is an institution, and Suleimani wasn't an extremist within it. The US would have been routed out of Iraq in 2005-6 if it wasn't for Iranians moderating Iraq Shia militia.
I don't think the assassination of Suleimani will lead to immediate escalation. But the IRGC will kill some US leaders of comparable rank in Afghanistan or visiting Saudi Arabia etc. in the next year. That's the way Persian foreign policy has worked for millennia, acting via proxy, often covertly, exploiting factionalism in neighbors. The Iranian leadership already knows they've won, their main regional adversary is now a puppet, the US isn't viewed as a reliable ally in the region, the House of Saud is known by all as a paper tiger. They can afford to wait this tempest out.
― The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool (Sanpaku), Friday, 3 January 2020 22:56 (four years ago) link
the House of Saud is known by all as a paper tiger
the Yemen conflict has hardly been a demonstration of their inability to inflict deaths and casualties on their chosen enemies, but it has demonstrated their inability to decisively assist their Yemeni allies to victory.
― A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 4 January 2020 01:25 (four years ago) link
"The Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well," [Pompeo] said. "This was a good thing for the entire world, and we are urging everyone in the world to get behind what the United States is trying to do to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to simply behave like a normal nation.”
a "normal nation" like the usa? because...
Warren's reaction to this is the first thing that's made me reconsider my support for her over Sanders.
― L'assie (Euler), Saturday, 4 January 2020 12:00 (four years ago) link
Love being called Brits btw.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 12:10 (four years ago) link
Just imagining a British Defence Minister referring to the USA as 'the Yanks'.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 12:11 (four years ago) link
looking forward to freedom fries part 2
― L'assie (Euler), Saturday, 4 January 2020 12:15 (four years ago) link
English muffins to be renamed MAGA Muffins
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 4 January 2020 12:23 (four years ago) link
What reaction from Warren is it people are talking about? She's been pretty empathetic on no more middle east wars on twitter?
― Frederik B, Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:10 (four years ago) link
lol Tom how are those things comparable
where does "Yank" appear anywhere in the name of the united states? "Brit" may not be prefereable (I don't use it) but why do you consider it a perjorative?
― Suggest Banshee (Hadrian VIII), Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:33 (four years ago) link
pejorative
Jerries for Germans then?
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:47 (four years ago) link
not to mention the J-words and P-words. It is fair to say there are millions in the UK who don't identify (nor ever fucking want to) as British.
― calzino, Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:53 (four years ago) link
I don't think it's especially pejorative, context though.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:57 (four years ago) link
(xp) Yeah, I'd say, in the UK, 'Brits' is associated with Irish Republicanism.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 13:59 (four years ago) link
Gotcha—that's not the understanding here. it's not common but I think ppl sometimes use it for lack of a plural ending in -s consistent with e.g. swedes, germans
calz if I may then what is the appropriate term to identify a UK resident
― Suggest Banshee (Hadrian VIII), Saturday, 4 January 2020 14:00 (four years ago) link
The British.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 14:02 (four years ago) link
... in the context of Mike Pompeo's statement.
― Frozen Mug (Tom D.), Saturday, 4 January 2020 14:03 (four years ago) link
I like Les Tosseurs de l'ouest
― calzino, Saturday, 4 January 2020 14:05 (four years ago) link
UK is a relatively new name (it didn't enter common usage till after WW2 i think), so Britain I suppose it is. But there are people in family who would react like you have spat in their face if you called them a Brit!
― calzino, Saturday, 4 January 2020 14:11 (four years ago) link