Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[beanman12345]

I think that's the biggest criticism of the assassination. And I'm itching to agree because it's Trump. But as a policy, it has sound roots. And in some arenas is considered long overdue.

I will not mourn his death for sure. But ask yourself this about the policy. Is the U.S. safer today than it was yesterday before this attack? Is Europe? Is the middle east?

[cubby]

My gripe with the assassination is the method used. With that airstrike (done by drones in a public area) how many civilians died?

I would agree with that gripe. Unfortunately, there usually isn't a good way to get at these guys.

[Edge-]

My gripe with the assassination is the method used. With that airstrike (done by drones in a public area) how many civilians died?

From what I've seen, no civilians were injured or killed. It was Sulemain and some of the Iraqi militia folks that were targeted.

[Dacien]

Does he have any strategy for the ME? because Objectively it's a fucking quagmire, and it seems that he's only pouring fuel for the ongoing fire(s)

Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.

[cubby]

I will not mourn his death for sure. But ask yourself this about the policy. Is the U.S. safer today than it was yesterday before this attack? Is Europe? Is the middle east?

So, that is certainly a longer policy discussion, but at first blush, we killed the guy who ordered and organized the attack. To me that's a good policy, overall, because it makes leaders think twice about ordering such attacks in the future. Will it stop them? Of course not. But it might give some of them pause. That is a win.

Now, the fallout of us assassinating a high ranking official from Iran. That will definitely have repercussions throughout the area - obviously as a recruiting tool and of course as more "Death to the Great Satan".

[Deianeira]

Think everyone can agree that the piece of shit deserved it, perhaps not the best time to do it though with all the tension.

Still there is pretty much nothing iran can do about it so well see what happens probably not much.

This is also a country that still hangs homosexuals in public, stones women and executes minors among other things, also the biggest terrorist sponsor in the middleast.

Think they need to get into that modern mindset abit.

Ofcourse not much Iran can do to the "USA" But they will probably escalate attacks by proxies. Also what do Trump think he will accomplish with this? My guess is he hopes Iran will attack one of the Warships the US have in the gulf or some other "big" target so he "will be forced to go to war to defend agains Iranian aggression"

Also there is the bigger issue, namely that about the US president unabashedly goes on national TV saying he killed the highest Military General in a foreign nation on another countries soil! What will Trump do when he realises he will get away with this?

Also to the suckers saying "This guy killed Americans and planned to kill more" What a bunch of bollocks if this was the case then Muhammed Bin Salman of the Saudis would be dead along time ago, and any number Saudi higher ups for the attacks on 9/11.

[Hif]

Just out of curiosity is that bolded part suppose to be normal for over there?

Its not as those are Iraqis. They are Iraqi shia who were funded by Iran to fight ISIL in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ization_Forces

The US just killed the Iraqi version of the Kurds!

[beanman12345]

Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.

3 years ago, I might, *HUGE MIGHT* have agreed with you. Trump has since fired all the "qualified" people, and is now surrounded by yes men. I trust not 1 person in Trump's orbit. Even his Chief's.

[Hif]

Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.

For killing the people that fought against the Islamic State in Iraq? Seriously. Its like the US bombing the SDF and kurds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ization_Forces

[Thepersona]

From what I've seen, no civilians were injured or killed. It was Sulemain and some of the Iraqi militia folks that were targeted.

Well... then. it is.. good?
i mean, it's still a massive fuckup, but at the very least no civilians were harmed.

[Edge-]

Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this

https://twitter.com/kellymagsamen/st...14369912332289

This aside, when was the last time Trump surrounded himself with qualified people? I mean, the guy who was his "Ukraine expert" know fuckall about the country and was tapped to advise Trump over Vindman, the actual Ukraine expert, initially.

Trump has surrounded himself with clowns from the get-go. It's rare that he has an actually qualified, intelligent person working for him.

and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail

They may, that doesn't mean Trump does. Or that Trump cares about warnings from them. He's made it a habit to reject key advise his presidency and go with "his gut".

I have the sense that this won't be badly handled.

Because Trump has been racking up the foreign policy wins since taking office? Because surely this further escalation following his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (which was working) didn't contribute towards these higher tensions?

You always seem to take the rosiest, most optimistic view on Trump. And always seemingly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Dacien]

3 years ago, I might, *HUGE MIGHT* have agreed with you. Trump has since fired all the "qualified" people, and is now surrounded by yes men. I trust not 1 person in Trump's orbit. Even his Chief's.

There's also the unknown quality. What will Iran do? How do we respond to that? There are a lot of ways this can turn into a real problem for everyone involved, including citizens caught in the middle of it. I still think that it was appropriate to take action. People talk about "escalation", but at some point you press the button when the terrorist who's killed hundreds is sitting on the tarmac. Especially when he's plotting more.

[Thepersona]

Something tells me that a lot of qualified people are surrounding Trump on this, and I do sort of lean towards trusting the United States government's top military officials to have a general understanding of what this strike would entail, what the fallout could possibly be, and how to plan for what follows. I have the sense that this won't be badly handled. I could be wrong.

Well... He's working with a skeleton crew right now, comprised mostly of yes men, and people who actually wants to bring in the armaggedon... so please forgive me for not having the same level of faith as you have.
From my POV this is a massive fuckup, done by a man with a fragile ego, who's trying to change the media narrative on something, anything else than the impeachment story

[Edge-]

Well... He's working with a skeleton crew right now, comprised mostly of yes men

This is the most dangerous part. Almost all the qualified advisers (even those we may disagree with) have departed or been pressured out, and they've largely been replaced with sycophants that largely only know how to tell Trump how brilliant he is.

[Elegiac]

*looks around*

Huh, that's weird. Given how concerned some people are with the cost of Medicare for All you'd think that there'd be nothing but a bevy of thinkpieces asking how we're going to pay for renewed conflict in the Middle East.

This is so reminiscent of the build up prior to Iraq it's' almost funny, right down to literally the same people arguing that the region will be better off without Sulemain who were arguing that it would be better off without Saddam.

[beanman12345]

So, that is certainly a longer policy discussion, but at first blush, we killed the guy who ordered and organized the attack. To me that's a good policy, overall, because it makes leaders think twice about ordering such attacks in the future. Will it stop them? Of course not. But it might give some of them pause. That is a win.

Now, the fallout of us assassinating a high ranking official from Iran. That will definitely have repercussions throughout the area - obviously as a recruiting tool and of course as more "Death to the Great Satan".

Well I do agree with you on that theory, but only in a vacuum. Cut off the head of the snake as it were. Make the other snakes wary. In that sense I understand. But since we're not in a vacuum i just see this all going to shit.

[Dacien]

https://twitter.com/kellymagsamen/st...14369912332289

Yes but this isn't all that different than what was done under the previous administration. Sort of quasi-legal Executive action. There's nothing to be "terrified" about.

Trump has surrounded himself with clowns from the get-go. It's rare that he has an actually qualified, intelligent person working for him.

I think he's had plenty of capable people working for him. John Kelly comes to mind. I trust Pompeo to be quite capable. And it's not just his cabinet; there are people from the top down involved in this kind of far-reaching foreign policy action.

Because Trump has been racking up the foreign policy wins since taking office? Because surely this further escalation following his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal (which was working) didn't contribute towards these higher tensions?

You always seem to take the rosiest, most optimistic view on Trump. And always seemingly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I dunno, it's just the sense I get. I am optimistic.

[nonameelf]

This is so reminiscent of the build up prior to Iraq it's' almost funny, right down to literally the same people arguing that the region will be better off without Sulemain who were arguing that it would be better off without Saddam.

"He was planning imminent attacks" sounds a lot like "Saddam has WMDs" to me.

[Elegiac]

Yes but this isn't all that different than what was done under the previous administration. Sort of quasi-legal Executive action. There's nothing to be "terrified" about.

That's nice, but we still remember living through 2016 and having you and the rest of the Trump camp continually insist Hillary was going to lead the nation into war and pointing to Obama's foreign policy as an example of it.

So you here saying "you're optimistic" about Trump's policy while in the same breath trying to justify it by its similarity to Obama's foreign policy is just clearly letting your bias hang out.

Also: we all still remember the rage over Benghazi, where's your demanding Pompeo's head for letting the US embassy in Iraq get attacked?

- - - Updated - - -

"He was planning imminent attacks" sounds a lot like "Saddam has WMDs" to me.

Yep. I'm not sure why we're suddenly supposed to treat this administration as business as usual when the Commander in Chief is a chronic and habitual liar that has literally been impeached for obstruction of justice.

[Dadwen]

Its not as those are Iraqis. They are Iraqi shia who were funded by Iran to fight ISIL in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...ization_Forces

The US just killed the Iraqi version of the Kurds!

from what I can find, their bases were bombed for attacking a Iraq Base that a US contractor was killed? then they attacked the Embassy, then we attacked their leader.

If they are over their attacking ISIL I've not dug up why they were attacking the base the US person got killed in?