Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

The conflict when Iran attacked our Embassy. It was on the news.

That was an Iraqi militia. Not Iran.

There's strong (and likely) suspicion that they're backed by Iran, but that doesn't make them Iranian.

Also, an airstrike killing a target who wasn't at the Embassy, as well as a bunch of others, at a civilian internation airport, that's a disproportionate response. That shit's a war crime. Literally no one died in the attack on the US Embassy in the Green Zone.

[starlord]

The conflict when Iran attacked our Embassy. It was on the news. Actually, we're in the wrong thread for this topic. The topic of "murder" with conflicting nations is almost impossible to resolve, and I'm not going to spend the energy on the conversation. My position is it wasn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. Killing him was the right thing to do, given the horrible things he's done.

- - - Updated - - -

We've been in conflict with Iran for decades, declaration of war or not.

the trump admin's efforts to conceal the real reasons for killing him, as well as the extent of immediate threat he posed, ought to make you question what they say.

[cubby]

That was an Iraqi militia. Not Iran.

There's strong (and likely) suspicion that they're backed by Iran, but that doesn't make them Iranian.

Also, an airstrike killing a target who wasn't at the Embassy, as well as a bunch of others, at a civilian internation airport, that's a disproportionate response. That shit's a war crime. Literally no one died in the attack on the US Embassy in the Green Zone.

The guy who ordered the attack died. That's the entire point of the new policy. As a country, we don't really care about the grunts on the ground who are ordered or tricked into killing other people. We are concerned about the top leadership that orders attacks on Embassy's. I'm comfortable with this policy, in general, because it finally punishes those that are responsible for ordering the attacks.

Please also remember, that I'm (in my little brain) separating the policy from the Resident. I think the policy is sound going forward. I am terrified of how it will play out in the hands of our Man-Child-in-Chief.

[CupOfChai]

Comments like this underscore the core issue, here.

You see this as "good guys" and "bad guys". If Soleimani was a "bad guy", then whatever the "good guys" do is justified, if it takes him out.

That's evil horse shit that doesn't fly outside of stupid action movies or video games. It's jingoistic nationalist warmongering.

You're lowering yourselves down to his level. It's like saying Stalin was a "good guy" because "hey, he helped take out Hitler".

No i don't see it as a black and white "good vs evil" conflict. But i've been based a soldier out of France for the last 5 years not being a national, done tours in middle east and Africa (Tchad, Niger and Mali).
Trump is a sink on the global stage where as the Iranians know how to play the media much better, people have short memory and a very basic sense of what is going on in the middle east.
Iran is in for the long game where as Trump got the attention span of a cricket.

But Soleimani not being a bad guy and hugely disrupting element in that area is not even up for discussion. We learned about that guy before our first deployment in the area.
He was a big regional player protected by the Iranian government which is for me as a French soldier the enemy after Isis.

[Pendulous]

So we've gone from "let's murder people that crossed a border" to "let's murder people because we don't like them". What's next?

[CupOfChai]

Neither are we...by any damn stretch.

Nooone said that. Trump is probably the worst thing that happened the US in a long. He pretty much destroyed years of work training and building in Kurdistan in a sweep.

Just hope he's gone next election or you'll have NATO troops spitting on your flag because the shit he's doing.

[cubby]

@cubby that’s not how it works. Being adversarial is different than being in direct conflict. It’s sad when people decide murder is better than effective diplomacy, something we had pre-Trump with regards to Iran.

But in my opinion it is how it should work. People order attacks on our country. And we blow up an ammo dump. Rinse and repeat doesn't seem to be working very well. If we start to target and kill those people responsible for ordering the attacks, perhaps despot countries will start to think twice about ordering attacks.

[CupOfChai]

then we should have gone through the proper channels to get him. we took out osama bin laden without violating other nations' sovereignty.

"following the rules" is what separates us from "the bad guys.".

You really think that's how it works ?

Let me tell you it is not. When Isis started to fall we had operation "god's hand" which was to take out as many former isis members when isis started to crumble before the could reach Europe.
That mean drones or just boots on the ground finding the people you're looking for but in bad company hence having to use arms first.

It's one thing being naive another to being utterly uneducated.

What do you think a lot of special forces do on the ground ?

[cubby]

then we should have gone through the proper channels to get him. we took out osama bin laden without violating other nations' sovereignty.

"following the rules" is what separates us from "the bad guys.".

We told Pakistan before we invaded their country to get osama bin laden?

[Endus]

The guy who ordered the attack died. That's the entire point of the new policy.

An attack that killed precisely zero people.

Also, the issue is not "Soleimani was killed". It's that you launched an airstrike against the civilian international airport of an ally's capital, without warning let alone permission.

As a country, we don't really care about the grunts on the ground who are ordered or tricked into killing other people. We are concerned about the top leadership that orders attacks on Embassy's. I'm comfortable with this policy, in general, because it finally punishes those that are responsible for ordering the attacks.

Responding to international crimes with war crimes isn't the step up you seem to think it is.

Please also remember, that I'm (in my little brain) separating the policy from the Resident. I think the policy is sound going forward. I am terrified of how it will play out in the hands of our Man-Child-in-Chief.

I'm not taking this position because of Trump. I haven't mentioned him once, here.

You're committing war crimes, launching airstrikes against allies, and expecting to get a pat on the back for it.

[cubby]

An attack that killed precisely zero people.

Also, the issue is not "Soleimani was killed". It's that you launched an airstrike against the civilian international airport of an ally's capital, without warning let alone permission.

The fact that the attack on the U.S. killed no one is irrelevant. The order is entirely the point.

Responding to international crimes with war crimes isn't the step up you seem to think it is.

You're committing war crimes, launching airstrikes against allies, and expecting to get a pat on the back for it.

I disagree that the action we took constituted a war crime. So do many others. Including the DoD, who approved and carried out the attack.

I'm not taking this position because of Trump. I haven't mentioned him once, here.

I know you're not. I'm just clarifying my position.

- - - Updated - - -

Big difference when the force was authorized by Congress. This wasn’t.

Obama asked Congress before the incursion into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden?

[Endus]

The fact that the attack on the U.S. killed no one is irrelevant. The order is entirely the point.

It matters, because an airstrike killing 10 people, only 5 of whom were even Iranian, is not a proportionate response.

[Edge-]

We told Pakistan before we invaded their country to get osama bin laden?

That's a completely different situation and isn't remotely the same.

Bin Laden wasn't high-level government official in a foreign nation, he was a non-state actor and terrorist. There were also credible concerns that they would alert Bin Laden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/u...aden-raid.html

Additionally, the Obama administration made a concerted effort to ensure that any strike against Bin Laden would be completely legal and above board. They had multiple legal justifications for the raid before it took place.

[cubby]

It matters, because an airstrike killing 10 people, only 5 of whom were even Iranian, is not a proportionate response.

I disagree. The lack of deaths or not isn't the issue. It's attacking a foreign country with continued impunity that matters. In the conversation that Vegas linked, showing the options, there were Iranian boats and training camps listed as "ok" targets. Between those three, I choose to go after the asshole who ordered the entire thing, rather than some vague "proportional" response.

[CupOfChai]

What do you think they do? Sounds like someone has watched too many movies...

That isn't even a damn response. I've worked as a soldier guessing you haven't based on your comment. It's been my life that past 5 years and i've been in both africa and the middle east.

[cubby]

That's a completely different situation and isn't remotely the same.

Bin Laden wasn't high-level government official in a foreign nation, he was a non-state actor and terrorist. There were also credible concerns that they would alert Bin Laden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/u...aden-raid.html

Additionally, the Obama administration made a concerted effort to ensure that any strike against Bin Laden would be completely legal and above board. They had multiple legal justifications for the raid before it took place.

I agree that's it a different situation. My point in the example was violating international laws in taking out Bin Laden. Someone pointed out that we didn't break any rules when we assassinated him, but we did. I think they were good rules to break, for the right reasons.

[beanman12345]

Like Trump cares about war crimes. He wanted to kill family members of terrorists. He wanted to bring back waterboarding, and was cheered by his cult. He don't care, they don't care.

[Edge-]

My point in the example was violating international laws in taking out Bin Laden.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osam...ry?id=13538365

That's debatable at-best. The NYT piece I linked was about how Obama administration lawyers spent a considerable amount of time researching and verifying the legality of a raid, and creating memos beforehand to ensure that they weren't scrambling for legal justification after the fact.

And this article here adds additional weight to those arguments, with the biggest wrench being whether the Seals were ordered to capture or kill Bin Laden, and even that not being a dealbreaker necessarily.

The biggest issue with that raid was we didn't alert Pakistan beforehand. And that was reportedly because there were credible concerns that they may have alerted Bin Laden about the impending raid.

Literally nothing that took place under the Obama administration leading into, or after, the raid is remotely similar to this shitshow under Trump.

There was no planning or legal research to ensure they were above board, which is why we're seeing an ever growing number of "legal justifications" ranging from "imminent attacks" to "retaliation for attacks" because the administration is frantically scrambling for legal justification while shrouding everything in secrecy. Even from Congress.

[cubby]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/osam...ry?id=13538365

That's debatable at-best. The NYT piece I linked was about how Obama administration lawyers spent a considerable amount of time researching and verifying the legality of a raid, and creating memos beforehand to ensure that they weren't scrambling for legal justification after the fact.

And this article here adds additional weight to those arguments, with the biggest wrench being whether the Seals were ordered to capture or kill Bin Laden, and even that not being a dealbreaker necessarily.

The biggest issue with that raid was we didn't alert Pakistan beforehand. And that was reportedly because there were credible concerns that they may have alerted Bin Laden about the impending raid.

Literally nothing that took place under the Obama administration leading into, or after, the raid is remotely similar to this shitshow under Trump.

There was no planning or legal research to ensure they were above board, which is why we're seeing an ever growing number of "legal justifications" ranging from "imminent attacks" to "retaliation for attacks" because the administration is frantically scrambling for legal justification while shrouding everything in secrecy. Even from Congress.

In no way shape or form am I arguing that the Trump administration did this right - they fucked it up several different ways, some of which you listed above - I'm arguing that the policy is a good idea, long over due in fact.

Obama and his administration completed the assassination of Bin Laden perfectly - in as much as that word can be used for that action. Trump is the opposite, a shitshow from beginning to end.

Trump's administration shouldn't have lured him under false pretense. They shouldn't have fired on a civilian airport. They shouldn't have killed anyone else by their intended target (unless that proved impossible). They should have taken their time. And much more.

But the policy of killing the person responsible for the attack is sound. It's MUCH better than killing the grunts who were ordered or tricked into the fray. Or some random boat or camp we feel is "proportional".

[Trifle]

But the policy of killing the person responsible for the attack is sound. It's MUCH better than killing the grunts who were ordered or tricked into the fray. Or some random boat or camp we feel is "proportional".

So it's also acceptable now for the Iranians to assassinate Trump? As the person who ordered the attack against one of their key government figures? Imagine the shit show if that actually happened...