Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Crispin]

You missed the last part I’m afraid

Rationality – a precondition for a stable deterrence system – had evaporated.

Simply pointing out that deterrence does not always work. Vietnam is another example, it was obvious that the US was far superior, yet they lost because north Vietnam were ready to make far greater sacrifices. Currently the Taliban is still not defeated and are gaining ground in Afghanistan, despite persistent droning.

[cubby]

Simply pointing out that deterrence does not always work. Vietnam is another example, it was obvious that the US was far superior, yet they lost because north Vietnam were ready to make far greater sacrifices. Currently the Taliban is still not defeated and are gaining ground in Afghanistan, despite persistent droning.

Of course it doesn't always work - no one has argued otherwise. My point is that when their lives are literally part of the equation in determining whether to attack the United States, they will certainly take it into account, because now we've actually done it, so they know we could do it again. That's the deterrence.

[Year2020]

Iranian General Sulemain killing is bigger than Osama Bin Laden's killing. First time in 40 years big missiles got fired on U.S military bases.

[CostinR]

The failings of deterrence is covered here

Nice cherry picking. How about we cover another aspect as to why the Junta invaded the Falklands from the very same article you linked:

Argentina, which contests the United Kingdom’s authority over the islands in the South Atlantic, knew only too well about the superiority of the British armed forces. However, over the course of several decades the UK had gradually been reducing its military protection for the islands. Thus, while London kept emphasising that the Falklands were British, the military Junta in Buenos Aires became convinced that such statements were mere lip service. When the Junta faced a domestic crisis that threatened its rule, it tried to generate support by stirring patriotic feelings and occupied the islands. Deterrence had failed because the United Kingdom had ignored an important factor. Striking a tough pose while at the same time reducing the means to make good on it undermines one of deterrence’s most important ingredients: credibility. The story did not end there, however. Much to Argentina’s surprise, the British Navy sailed to the South Atlantic and re-conquered the islands. General Galtieri, the Chief of Argentina’s military Junta, later admitted that he never believed that a European country would be ready to pay such a high price for a few insignificant islands so far away. Argentina, too, had miscalculated.

Basically the Junta attacked the Falklands because they believed, as did many people around the world at the time, that the UK would not really bother defending the Falklands because of what it would cost. Thatcher proved them wrong.

It's also worth understanding that many military experts did not think the United Kingdom had the military capability to retake the Islands.

[Orbitus]

Iranian General Sulemain killing is bigger than Osama Bin Laden's killing. First time in 40 years big missiles got fired on U.S military bases.

Probably because OBL wasn't tied to any known government at the time of his death? And Al-Qaeda didn't have the missiles to shoot at bases when OBL died?

That is probably the lamest rationalization for this assassination ever.

[ati87]

The us weren't far superior if they lost.

A victory with an war of attrition is not determined by who has the superior military but by who can keep on fighting the longest.
Reason why you really can't win an actual war of aggression in current day because once the government falls you still have to deal with the entire army that just turned into a militia.

[Levelfive]

"Report: Trump Authorized Assassination Of Soleimani Seven Months Ago"

Apologies if this has already been posted--I just saw it now: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/r...ven-months-ago

[Orange Joe]

You want to deter future 2016-style election hacks? Kill these men for their crimes. Openly. Loudly. Send a message

You would fit in perfectly in North Korea...... Sorry I prefer my country not to be scumbags.

[arandomuser]

Seems like trump won on iran. we killed their top general, and all they did was shoot rockets at bases killing no americans, and in their paranoia shoot down one of their own passenger jets further ruining their credibility, that is a loss for iran, oh and trump guarantees regime change will happen in the future by getting iran to admit its not complying with the jcpoa anymore, unless he basically re writes the same agreement and puts his name on it just like he did nafta

[ohtlmtlm]

new reporting saying that the assassination was 7 months in the works.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...tions-n1113271


also rather large protests going on against the Iranian government for shooting down the plane.. seemingly lost the potential good will of being the victim.

[JohnBrown1917]

Seems like trump won on iran. we killed their top general, and all they did was shoot rockets at bases killing no americans, and in their paranoia shoot down one of their own passenger jets further ruining their credibility, that is a loss for iran, oh and trump guarantees regime change will happen in the future by getting iran to admit its not complying with the jcpoa anymore, unless he basically re writes the same agreement and puts his name on it just like he did nafta

Killed by telling iran/Iraq it was for peace talks, so good job on ruining the smallest amount of trust they still had, and killing that general was only a huge win for the Iran propaganda machine and ISIS. So again, good job.

- - - Updated - - -

You would fit in perfectly in North Korea...... Sorry I prefer my country not to be scumbags.

I got the feeling Trump/Skroe would be on the side of the government in the kent state killings.


The main difference between nevertrump conservatives and Trump is that they deem Trump to be to "uncivil".

[Orange Joe]

I got the feeling Trump would be on the side of the government in the kent state killings.

I guess I should change that to.. My country is enough of a scumbag already. no need to make it worse.

[cubby]

@cubby your inability to keep up with the war on terror is on you at this point. Good luck with the warmongering though. It only got an entire plane shot down.

And your inability to effectively defend your position is on you. Come on back if you want to keep chatting - I have sincerely enjoyed it so far. Not sure why you're doing it this way.

[arandomuser]

Killed by telling iran/Iraq it was for peace talks, so good job on ruining the smallest amount of trust they still had, and killing that general was only a huge win for the Iran propaganda machine and ISIS. So again, good job.

- - - Updated - - -

by win i mean in terms of US political framing, not actually winning strategically

[Breccia]

"Report: Trump Authorized Assassination Of Soleimani Seven Months Ago"

If true, then this is even more alarming:

Trump flat-out admits in public it doesn't matter if there was an eminent, or imminent, threat. Killing him was "the right thing to do".

So, like I said, an Iraq War excuse. "Oh, turns out they didn't have WMDs. It was still the right thing to do. Mission Bigly Accomplished!"

Now, that excuse is bad enough on its own. If this was seven months in the planning, and there was still no major threat...then, yes, this was a blatant assassination because Trump's widdle feewings were hurt.

Also, the House is going to have a hearing on the assassination of an Iranian government leader. Pompeo is refusing to testify. Because "most transparent administration ever" was always bullshit, and even Trump voters know this.

[Edge-]

Trump flat-out admits in public it doesn't matter if there was an eminent, or imminent, threat. Killing him was "the right thing to do".

So his administration has been lying to Congress and the public about this? No. Way.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...01075248541699

So, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was on Face of the Nation this weekend and was asked about this. Few big pieces that are relevant -

1. There's no evidence 4 embassies were targeted, Trump unsurprisingly ad-libbed that during his interview. But he believed 4 were being targets, so it's not a "lie", some will probably say.

2. There was never any evidence presented of imminent attacks, which would be required for Trump to take action without Congressional approval.

3. Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence have all spent the past week or so lying through their teeth to the American people, Congress, the media, and the world.

4. Subsequent administrations will spend decades rebuilding the trust in the US that this administration has completely shattered before even completing their first term.

5. The American people are used to being lied to, but we've never been lied to this brazenly or frequently before. Some may not care because they prefer the lies, but this too will damage US trust in our government and will take decades to rebuilds. Even if some will never trust the government unless "their guy" is in there.

[Crispin]

Nice cherry picking. How about we cover another aspect as to why the Junta invaded the Falklands from the very same article you linked:



Basically the Junta attacked the Falklands because they believed, as did many people around the world at the time, that the UK would not really bother defending the Falklands because of what it would cost. Thatcher proved them wrong.

It's also worth understanding that many military experts did not think the United Kingdom had the military capability to retake the Islands.

Cherry picking?? I never claimed it was a 1 to 1 comparison, but that deterrence is not fool proof. Moving goal posts does not change that

There are numerous incidents of states giving fuck all about deterrence, and heading to war for various reasons.

[Levelfive]

If true, then this is even more alarming:

Trump flat-out admits in public it doesn't matter if there was an eminent, or imminent, threat. Killing him was "the right thing to do".

So, like I said, an Iraq War excuse. "Oh, turns out they didn't have WMDs. It was still the right thing to do. Mission Bigly Accomplished!"

Now, that excuse is bad enough on its own. If this was seven months in the planning, and there was still no major threat...then, yes, this was a blatant assassination because Trump's widdle feewings were hurt.

Also, the House is going to have a hearing on the assassination of an Iranian government leader. Pompeo is refusing to testify. Because "most transparent administration ever" was always bullshit, and even Trump voters know this.

Yeah, I feel like this is kind of a big deal, but ok, nytimes.

[Kellhound]

A victory with an war of attrition is not determined by who has the superior military but by who can keep on fighting the longest.
Reason why you really can't win an actual war of aggression in current day because once the government falls you still have to deal with the entire army that just turned into a militia.

You CAN win, but you have to do it with diplomacy once the main fighting is done.

[sarahtasher]

You CAN win, but you have to do it with diplomacy once the main fighting is done.

Allow me.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ying-islam-too