[Breaking News] US base in Iraq struck by Iranian and Iraqi militia missiles.

[Crispin]

How many Americans did Kim Jung-un kill? Please make a better argument.

- - - Updated - - -



I guess you rather us sit back and do nothing, attack our embassy and let them kill our ambassador?

They killed your ambassador?

[Somewhatconcerned]

All the worries about WW3 last night seem silly. A lot of comments in this thread that won't age well.

I don't know how you can say Trump hasn't shown great restraint with Iran. All the ships seized, drones shot down, and now this strike and we haven't come down heavy handed on them (militarily at least). And STILL we're giving them a chance to have a seat at the table. Granted we took out their general but it was a defensive move sparked by the embassy riots.

Not sure why more countries don't follow Saudi Arabia or Jordan's lead and just stop trying to be confrontational and instead collaborate and see the money/support roll right into your country. It doesn't need to be this way at all.

[zenkai]

They killed your ambassador?

They would have if Clinton had been in charge, but this time our embassy got a proper response to the attack. Have you not read the news?

[gtempest]

It amuses me how many people think this is the response. If anything this is meant as a gesture in the hopes the western allies will let their guard down. Now America has assassinated a leading political figure, and despite what people say he was a revered and political figure in Iran.This is an absolutely terrible precedent to set and it absolutely would not surprise me if one of Irans proxies attempts to assassinate a notable US figure or even attacks a political event or conference, and Trump knew that too, thus the initial threats to attack Iranian culture, he knows they cant recriprocate in kind realistically to that. If you are someone like Mike Pompeo or even Ivanka Trump then you probably have increased security and much more restricted travel itenaries.

[Jessicka]

How many Americans did Kim Jung-un kill? Please make a better argument.

- - - Updated - - -



I guess you rather us sit back and do nothing, attack our embassy and let them kill our ambassador?

Well if that’s going to happen it’s going to happen. Doesn’t seem to matter which big bad you assassinate in a drone strike, there’s always another a few weeks down the line.

Maybe address the problems rather than try to work through an endless kill list to try to fix it?

[starlord]

It amuses me how many people think this is the response. If anything this is meant as a gesture in the hopes the western allies will let their guard down. Now America has assassinated a leading political figure, and despite what people say he was a revered and political figure in Iran.This is an absolutely terrible precedent to set and it absolutely would not surprise me if one of Irans proxies attempts to assassinate a notable US figure or even attacks a political event or conference, and Trump knew that too, thus the initial threats to attack Iranian culture, he knows they cant recriprocate in kind realistically to that. If you are someone like Mike Pompeo or even Ivanka Trump then you probably have increased security and much more restricted travel itenaries.

indeed. their supreme leader or w/e already said that the strike "wasn't enough."

[unfilteredJW]

They would have if Clinton had been in charge, but this time our embassy got a proper response to the attack. Have you not read the news?

Speaking volumes here.

[Fantasimo]

You seem to be under the impression they want a winnable war with clear, definable objectives. That is not what the industrial military complex wants, it needs unwinnable protracted campaigns with open ended goal and unachievable objectives, so it can just keep going on forever.

You are correct. I'm not really into expending that much intelligence on this, as you can tell.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks Iran for spending a few million dollars just to poke the sleeping bear, your military strategist must be top in his class.

Oh what are you going to do, fight a protracted and costly guerilla war for decades that gives the morally bankrupt leadership the status of heroic underdog patriots? THAT'LL SCARE 'EM.

[Skroe]

ok but, whats the end goal here?
if the usa keeps retaliating and iran keeps retaliating, when will it stop?

didnt you say recently that the US should gtfo of the middle east, so they can focus on china? why escalate escalate when you want to get out?

So the typical "model" of an offramp is third party negotiations. Basically when two countries (any two) get in a slap fight like this, it continues until a third, or a group of them, drag the parties into international mediaiton. The classic example given is if the US and China ever got into a spat like this and neither took the others off ramps, eventually (before it got out of control) Germany, Russia and India would try and drag them both to international mediation and begin a process of deconfliction to return to a non-militarized status quo.


Basically from my angle, although it seems not to be going down this path, although I want us out of the region, if Iran is challenging US deterrence, that is the route I saw it going. Tit for tat until either Iran yielded and US deterrence was bolstered, or Europe and Russia and China dragging the US and Iran into international mediation, but after a point in which significant damage was inflicted on the Iranian regime.

Something people miss about the Iraq War lead up in 2003 was that the war was basically a failure of this to succeed. Technically speaking the "WMD crisis" (let's call it) that led to the war was a bilateral US-Iraq thing that involved regional players, but the key issue was between the US and Iraq... so two parties. The entire UN process, with the UN Security council, Resolution 1441, Germany and France and Russia getting involved, was them trying to mediate before the conflict occurred.

So a hypothetical way out would be an escalatory spiral until a negotiated settlement is put into place whereby the US withdrew its military forces to somewhere not threatening Iran in an attack posture, and in turn, Russia confiscating Iran's ballistic missiles (or something like that... just spitballing here). An escalatory spiral playing to an internationally structured settlement like that is fairly common in geopolitical conflicts when they really flare.

[Crispin]

They would have if Clinton had been in charge, but this time our embassy got a proper response to the attack. Have you not read the news?

Oh god more Benghazi stupidity?

[Deus Mortis]

Imagine the state of the US right now, where I'm taking the side of Iran over it.

It's fucking IRAN. When you're in a room with a despotic theocracy with a litany of human rights abuses and YOU'RE the asshole? Holy shit.

Have you ever been on the US side? When you have comments like this regarding 9/11 attacks on the US:

I laughed my ass off when it happened.

Not liking America was like the opposite of edgy in Australian universities in 2001.

When we found out it was just a bunch of religious nutcases from the Middle East it kind of sucked all the fun out of it though.

[Skroe]

Going rogue on this will obviously hurt relations, I’m sure you remember france and germany going nuts over Iraq.

The relations obviously wont end, but you seem either ignorant or indifferent to the fact that EU mainly prefere diplomacy, especially in a situation where the US dropped a deal it entered a few years before.

Europe wont be in debt forever for the Marshall-help, times change and so do alliances. You seem to think that the Us can bomb the world into submission, and nothing can be done because of SWIFT or potential US actions.

On the contrary, I do not. But Europe's response to us drone striking one of the worst men in the world is extremely troubling. It really makes me question the value of the alliance... and you will recall everything I've said in support of that alliance and Europe over the last few years.

I don't expect Europe to kiss our ass or anything. But if Europe can't eve stomach the US holding Iran to account for an outrageous action (sacking our embassy and killing our contractor) in a way that is at least halfway understanding because of a fear of risk of consequence, how can we possibly hope to deter Russia, with whom the consequences are far greater.

Basically I'm starting to think we may be wasting our time with this entire alliance. Beyond just the facts of military hardware and formations and what not - the farce like Germany, a major industrial power having a couple hundred tanks total - the pathologically risk adverse policy mindset is deeply troubling. Prudence is fine. This is so much further. Europe should be very concerned that it looks both unreliable and untrust worthy to us.

i don't know. I value the alliance. But the things Trump has said about the alliance - about the unequal burden sharing, about skittishness of Europeans in conflicts, about the slowness of modernization - predate Trump and will post date him too.

Something has to change. Because of killing this rat bastard is going to cause that much of a stink, how can we count on Europe to at least have our back when we take more drastic actions against Russia or China? Which we will have to this century if the liberal world order is to remain free.

[Crispin]

On the contrary, I do not. But Europe's response to us drone striking one of the worst men in the world is extremely troubling. It really makes me question the value of the alliance... and you will recall everything I've said in support of that alliance and Europe over the last few years.

I don't expect Europe to kiss our ass or anything. But if Europe can't eve stomach the US holding Iran to account for an outrageous action (sacking our embassy and killing our contractor) in a way that is at least halfway understanding because of a fear of risk of consequence, how can we possibly hope to deter Russia, with whom the consequences are far greater.

Basically I'm starting to think we may be wasting our time with this entire alliance. Beyond just the facts of military hardware and formations and what not - the farce like Germany, a major industrial power having a couple hundred tanks total - the pathologically risk adverse policy mindset is deeply troubling. Prudence is fine. This is so much further. Europe should be very concerned that it looks both unreliable and untrust worthy to us.

i don't know. I value the alliance. But the things Trump has said about the alliance - about the unequal burden sharing, about skittishness of Europeans in conflicts, about the slowness of modernization - predate Trump and will post date him too.

Something has to change. Because of killing this rat bastard is going to cause that much of a stink, how can we count on Europe to at least have our back when we take more drastic actions against Russia or China? Which we will have to this century if the liberal world order is to remain free.

You need to put the situation into perspective. If France droned Lavrov, would the US not be reluctant to cheer them on? From this side of the pond the 2nd highest ranking person in Iran was droned, that's not insignificant.

And it's honestly a tad hard to take it serious when you call Europe unreliable, with Mr. twitter in control in the US. The EUis probably the most predictable region in the world atm (don't you dare mention Brexit ;-) )

[Themius]

The US is more than capable of decimating the Iranian military and military-industrial complex by itself. The US did gain clear tactical success in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but the civilian leadership of the US has been 100% incapable of producing a strategic success no matter who is in office.

How exactly? They're a country that actually has air defense systems, unlike Iraq. I'm sure enough could pose a problem for the country of course, but this isn't Iraq. Not to mention a ground offensive is just... no...



Iraq is mostly flat and low elevation while most of Iran is mountainous.

[Skulltaker]

Basically I'm starting to think we may be wasting our time with this entire alliance. Beyond just the facts of military hardware and formations and what not - the farce like Germany, a major industrial power having a couple hundred tanks total - the pathologically risk adverse policy mindset is deeply troubling. Prudence is fine. This is so much further. Europe should be very concerned that it looks both unreliable and untrust worthy to us.

Until you fix your presidential problem no-one in the world will take any remarks of being reliable or trustworthy serious. It's like a blue whale telling a hippo 'no offense, but you look heavy.' Get that orange retard off the helm, then we can talk about reliability and trust.

[Thekri]

You need to put the situation into perspective. If France droned Lavrov, would the US not be reluctant to cheer them on? From this side of the pond the 2nd highest ranking person in Iran was droned, that's not insignificant.

And it's honestly a tad hard to take it serious when you call Europe unreliable, with Mr. twitter in control in the US. The EUis probably the most predictable region in the world atm (don't you dare mention Brexit ;-) )

If the UK struck Lavrov immediately after Sergei Skripal was poisoned, and claimed they had evidence that Lavrov directly ordered the killings, and was imminently preparing further killings of UK citizens, then yes, I would certainly expect the US to back them on that decision. Or at very least take a very hard look at the evidence UK intelligence services shared.

That said, I have no idea the quality of intelligence that led to striking Suleimani. He has been attacking US assets for a long time, but that is more a common knowledge sort of situation then hard evidence. It is possible that Trump got mad and ordered him killed based on vague intelligence. Or maybe we did have concrete evidence, I don't know. If it is the later, then I view the strike as justified, and I would very much like the EU to back us up on this. If it is the former, not so much.

[starlord]

If the UK struck Lavrov immediately after Sergei Skripal was poisoned, and claimed they had evidence that Lavrov directly ordered the killings, and was imminently preparing further killings of UK citizens, then yes, I would certainly expect the US to back them on that decision. Or at very least take a very hard look at the evidence UK intelligence services shared.

That said, I have no idea the quality of intelligence that led to striking Suleimani. He has been attacking US assets for a long time, but that is more a common knowledge sort of situation then hard evidence. It is possible that Trump got mad and ordered him killed based on vague intelligence. Or maybe we did have concrete evidence, I don't know. If it is the later, then I view the strike as justified, and I would very much like the EU to back us up on this. If it is the former, not so much.

i imagine if it was so cut and dry then trump wouldn't have gone to such lengths to conceal it from the public.

[Skroe]

You need to put the situation into perspective. If France droned Lavrov, would the US not be reluctant to cheer them on? From this side of the pond the 2nd highest ranking person in Iran was droned, that's not insignificant.

And it's honestly a tad hard to take it serious when you call Europe unreliable, with Mr. twitter in control in the US. The EUis probably the most predictable region in the world atm (don't you dare mention Brexit ;-) )

So slight aside, Lavrov is the one Russian I respect. From people who know him, with regards to Russia's internal politics, he is reportedly fairly apolitical and not a Putin acoylyte. Consequently despite his high position, he's never been part of Putn's inner circle.

What Lavrov is though, is a patriot. That's been made clear over the past 20 years. Not only is he an excellent diplomat that many US diplomats respect... even admire in a way due to his historic tenure... he is truly motivated by a love of country. And while he fights dirty, his motivations are those of a quintessential diplomat on behalf of his country and not a Kremlin thug.

I wouldn't want to see Lavrov droned. I'd want to see him turned and hired and his talents put to work for a positive end.

But almost any other Russian official I can think of? Go nuts. Drone them to France's delight.

And Europe is less reliable than you may think it is. The constant changes in governments in Europe since the Financial crisis is no minor deal. Going between left and right and far left and far right every few years... trying every party under the sun and coalitions rising and falling.... it's never been to this degree in Europe. Europe was more politically stable than the United States for generations. And now, though Trump is a maniac, Merkel aside, US leaders are seeing changes in European leadership far more often. As I said, it's like you've all become Italy. Well not all. Some of you are still fine.

A big part of this is the populist tide that needs to be put down. They try from the left and they try from the right. A renormalization of center right and left parties will stretch out changes in power and stabilizing the political scene in the continent once again.

[Thekri]

i imagine if it was so cut and dry then trump wouldn't have gone to such lengths to conceal it from the public.

Perhaps. That sort of intelligence isn't the sort of thing you publicly release though, for reasons that should be fairly obvious, but I will explain anyway.

Example 1) The US has a source within the IRGC who is a senior officer, and a political rival of Sulemani. This rival provided documents detailing a planned attack on a US asset in the middle east, and Sulemani's involvement in the attack. In this case the US would have access to the actual original Kuds Force documents, which is extremely hard evidence, but as very few people in Iran would have access to them, releasing the nature of the evidence would certainly lead to the compromise of that asset.

Example 2) The US installed remote monitoring devices on cell phone towers across Iraq when we were rebuilding it. The IRGC is unaware of this, and we have been listening to all their communications in Iraq for the last 3 years. We have all the audiologs, but obviously we don't want Iran to know we are doing this. Also, we don't particularly want everyone else to know we tapped an entire nations phone system.

I don't know if either of those are true, but they are certainly possible, and both are valid reasons not to release the information, as revealing even the nature of the evidence would be extremely damaging.

Like I said earlier though, it is also entirely possible such clear cut evidence does not exist, the intelligence report was patched together from the usual mess of third hand sources that together paint a convincing, but scarcely authoritative picture, and Trump took the lethal option because Fox and Friends made him frustrated that morning.

[Flower Milk]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/polit...cks/index.html

There is a growing belief among some Trump administration officials that Iran's missiles intentionally missed areas populated by Americans when they targeted two Iraqi bases housing US troops early Wednesday local time, multiple administration officials said.

Iran fired a number of missiles aimed at the bases in retaliation for the American strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani last week, further escalating tensions between the two countries. Officials have said there were no US casualties as a result of the attacks, though a full assessment is underway.

The administration officials floated the notion that Iran could have directed their missiles to hit areas that are populated by Americans, but intentionally did not.

And they suggested Iran may have chosen to send a message rather than take significant enough action to provoke a substantial US military response, a possible signal the administration was looking for rationale to calm the tensions.

Iranian missiles also landed close to the US consulate in Erbil, but didn't target the consulate itself, though the belief is that they could have.

"We could have done it and we didn't do it," is the message Iranians appeared to be sending, a State Department official said.

This interpretation will be presented to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a briefing early Wednesday, and Pompeo is expected to brief President Donald Trump at some point later in the day. The President will address the nation about the incident at 11 a.m. ET, the White House said.

So Iran specifically didn't want to kill any Americans, and now the ball is in Trump's court to de-escalate this. I'm praying he's not an idiot and tries to get us into a war anyway, but I don't have a lot of faith.