Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Shadowferal]

If Trump hadn't made up shit to justify his panic attack with the War vote in the House....fucking snowflake-in-chief.

[Ihavewaffles]

Man the 737 going down at this time is extremely suspicious

Are they blaming Russia yet?

Petraeus was no an architect of the Iraq War. You said that before. I honestly don't think you know what his role was in 2002/2003 (he was commander of the 101st Airborne).

Petraeus was in fact, put out to pasture... to toil in obscurity by those architects. He introduced counterinsurgency techniques in his assignment in Mosul and created the safest region in the country at the time. As his reward those war architects tried to end his career by sidelining him stateside. When the war went to real shit in 2005/2006/2007, he was brought in by George W Bush to initiate the surge and start a large scale counterinsurgency campaign that those war architects resisted.

Why? Because those War architects were cold warriors. They thought in terms of heavy armor and divisions and maneuver warfare. They were out of their depth in Iraq once the occupation occurred. Petraeus found that unsuitable for the actual war. So he basically redesigned the entire War effort from scratch.

The surge worked and Petraeus' successor, Ordierno continued his success. The surge cleared the way for US Troops to leave Iraq in 2010. And that was the end of David Petraeus' involvement in Iraq as a General.

So no. He wasn't an architect. He was the guy brought in to clean up the mess the actual architects made. Names you don't remember like Ricardo Sanchez and Paul Bremmer and George Casey and Tommy Franks. And Donald Rumsfeld too, lets not forget.

Hold people accountable for what they actually are, not what you would like them to be.

Ah yes, Petraeus, the same guy who wanted america post 9/11 to cooperate with "moderate al-nusra" (al-qaida) against isis...
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-to-beat-isis

Told you - Iran pussied off in the end. They don't really want to get into any sort of real military struggle against US, because they know they will lose right there.

As expected, really.

And Trump gave Syria warnings too before he struck them a while back...to be seen doing something...

This is the US base, one MOAB n it would be dust...but iran has old tech..


- - - Updated - - -

So is Trump really going to pussy out?

He got an election to win, n a war wouldn't help him, quite the opposite..

[Edge-]

Are they blaming Russia yet?

Apparently Iran is refusing to hand over the black box to Boeing atm. So we're still waiting to find out much.

[Shadowferal]

This is the US base, one MOAB n it would be dust...but iran has old tech..

"Old tech?"

How a ‘quantum change’ in missiles has made Iran a far more dangerous foe

In subsequent reports, U.S. analysts would describe the attack as a kind of wake-up call: evidence of a vastly improved arsenal of high-precision missiles that Iran has quietly developed and shared with allies over the past decade.

------------------

They probably could have killed American soldiers...but they chose not to. The chose to send a message instead.

[Kiri]

You mean the imminent and specific threat that was neither specific nor imminent? Honestly, I had to read that quote several times and still couldn't make sense of it.

It's important to remember that words like "clear" or "imminent" do not necessarily mean what we usually associate with them with respect to drone strikes. The definition there was a little broader, at least in the past. Well, the one that is used to justify them. I still remember the memo that NBC news attained in that regard. ( http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-d...s-legal-use-dr ), though the link to the memo no longer works. Been years, after all.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,”

Doesn't necessarily mean it is still in use, but that definition would probably explain why the admin is talking about "clear and imminent threat". It kind of fits this case, at least on the level of memo semantics.

[Elegiac]

Some peak trolling from one of the attendees regarding media reporting on Soleimani's funeral:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214641652498866176

"Why did you come here today?"

"We're not here, we've been photoshopped...

This crowd is made up of ten cops, six revolutionary guardsmen, & two guys they bribed with juice packs"

[Ihavewaffles]

"Old tech?"

How a ‘quantum change’ in missiles has made Iran a far more dangerous foe

In subsequent reports, U.S. analysts would describe the attack as a kind of wake-up call: evidence of a vastly improved arsenal of high-precision missiles that Iran has quietly developed and shared with allies over the past decade.

------------------

They probably could have killed American soldiers...but they chose not to. The chose to send a message instead.

Iran is impressive, when compared to other 3rd world militaries...but if you need one missile per building, you would need a lot of missiles..btw ur link requires a subscription to view...


Iran needs to get base-killing missiles, not building-killing missiles which all the kids have

[Elegiac]

And I will add that this philosophy is what made the US the strongest & most influential country in the world.

I don't see anything wrong with patriotism & nationalism of the things you are proud off. Japan, China, Russia adopt exactly the same kind of philosophy and look at the weight they add to the world.

A legacy of exploitative imperialism and human rights abuses? Not sure what point you're making here besides that nationalism invariably leads to a form of supremacist ideology.

[DarkTZeratul]

And I will add that this philosophy is what made the US the strongest & most influential country in the world.

I don't see anything wrong with patriotism & nationalism of the things you are proud off. Japan, China, Russia adopt exactly the same kind of philosophy and look at the weight they add to the world.

Patriotism and nationalism are two very different things. Unfortunately, people often mistake the latter for the former.

[Jessicka]

And I will add that this philosophy is what made the US the strongest & most influential country in the world.

I don't see anything wrong with patriotism & nationalism of the things you are proud off. Japan, China, Russia adopt exactly the same kind of philosophy and look at the weight they add to the world.

It played no small part in British Imperialism either. Indeed English exceptionalism was probably the biggest driver of Brexit. The key point is that it goes hand in hand with a whole heap of denialism of reality, and that makes it unsustainable.

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. pride is a very real emotion & you're trying to suppress it. same as shame.

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bragging about your military might so other countries would think twice before attempting to screw with you.

There absolutely is, because you think they won't, then you're surprised when they do and don't know how to deal with their asymmetric opposition.

There's no such thing as peace through superior firepower. The USA was born out of that very fact, strange that it forgets that's the case.

[Draco-Onis]

No it doesn't. pride is a very real emotion & you're trying to suppress it. same as shame.

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with bragging about your military might so other countries would think twice before attempting to screw with you.

Having a great military is like having a big penis if you got it everyone knows and you don't need to brag about it . The people that need to brag are insecure idiots with psychological issues.

[Jessicka]

Yes there is. nuclear weapons is a war deterrent and a very successful one. If US didn't have it, then it would turn into "The man in the high castle"

Good show though. I highly suggest you watch it.

That's not superior firepower, it's mutually assured destruction.

[Shadowferal]

..btw ur link requires a subscription to view...

Sorry, I had/have javascript disabled...

[Kellhound]

"Old tech?"

How a ‘quantum change’ in missiles has made Iran a far more dangerous foe

In subsequent reports, U.S. analysts would describe the attack as a kind of wake-up call: evidence of a vastly improved arsenal of high-precision missiles that Iran has quietly developed and shared with allies over the past decade.

------------------

They probably could have killed American soldiers...but they chose not to. The chose to send a message instead.

Most Iranian military hardware IS old tech.

[Endus]

International diplomacy is not the school yard, thats the core issue.

It’s been a minimum of posters who screamed WWIII.

And not wanting a new world war has nothing to do with being “a generation of pussies”, your ignorance is pathetic.

And it's hardly an unreasonable possibility.

We've had two World Wars. One of which was kicked off with the assassination of a single political figure; the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary was not a global superpower, nor was Serbia. Their conflict still triggered a World War. It isn't about how significant the fuse is, when it's lit. What matters is how many global powers kick in and take a side in the brewing conflict.

If Iran v. USA becomes a "thing", and Russia and/or China kick in on the side of Iran, that's all it would really take to start the ball rolling.

[Crispin]

So more explosions in the green zone in Baghdad, lovely.

[Draco-Onis]

Most Iranian military hardware IS old tech.

North Korea is launching nukes on commodore 64 level computers, age is kind of irrelevant in a lot of ways.

[Jessicka]

call it what you like. doesn't change the fact that it's a war deterrent and worked perfectly well. google pearl harbor & the effects of nuclear weapons.

I'm calling it what it is.

Peace through superior firepower doesn't work, because asymmetric Guerilla warfare exists, it existed in the Napoleonic wars, it existed in Colonial America - and if you don't think the British Imperial forces which controlled 1/3 of the planet's land surface didn't have vastly superior firepower, then you're sadly mistaken.

And mutually assured destruction is not superior firepower, it's very much about being of equally apocalyptic threat. Even that threat of mutual destruction without nuclear power wasn't enough to prevent either World War One or Two either; it's just an arms race. Even here I don't see the USA with its vastly superior firepower challenging China or Russia directly, yet they are all still involved in proxy wars, which are themselves asymmetric, all over the place.

NATO didn't win the Cold War through superior firepower, and Japan had already called for peace (albeit on terms) when the US dropped the bomb, which got those terms dropped, but was itself an asymmetric threat to the Soviet Union which was at the time out of reach of that nuclear threat, and perceived to be a threat to US forces in Europe.

So again, peace through superior firepower just doesn't work. Humans are just too stubborn to accept that kind of defeat, history is full of it, and heroes are made of it when they find their way through it.

[Kellhound]

North Korea is launching nukes on commodore 64 level computers, age is kind of irrelevant in a lot of ways.

Nuclear weapons and liquid fuel rockets are WWII tech. In conventional warfare, technology is very important.

[Jessicka]

Nuclear weapons and liquid fuel rockets are WWII tech. In conventional warfare, technology is very important.

No one fights a conventional war against America.