• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Iran Quds Force head Qassem Soleimani killed in Baghdad strike

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,971
19,976
855
I believe the point at which I identified Trumpism as a cult is when he literally said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and lose no voters, said Ted Cruz' dad helped assassinate JFK, and continually said for years that Obama was born in Kenya to create his political career.

But, ok, sure, Trump is clearly a totally normal American President and has no cult like tendencies than any other. This is just politics as normal. I can't imagine why leftist kept warning about normalization while people like yourself constantly try to normalize the shit Trump does.
I am old enough to remember Obama.

I am also capable of recognizing Trump was telling a joke.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,187
7,278
1,470
At least they will stop pretending now.


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


Assuming we trust Pompeo, then the kill was justified. And if we throw out all intelligence, then we might as well flip a coin on foreign policy. While I am sure there are bad actors in military intelligence, I'm even more confident terrorist organizations have terrorists.
If this is true then it was the right move. It's hard to say what is true and what isn't nowadays.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,363
7,855
1,590
Describing the embassy vandalism as "Attacking the US" has got to be the most hyperbolic description I've heard
Foreign agents broke into our embassy, and our personnel barely had time to shelter before the combatants got in to them. It was no different from Benghazi, except this time no Americans died and retaliation was executed in a swift, decisive, and surgical manner.


And Trumps the one who murdered their top military commander over what amounts to petty vandalism.
And, you know, a long history of organizing the killing of Americans outside of Iran.

Also, he was not murdered. He was killed in combat he started. Calling it "murder" is like calling killing a home invader "murder". Homicide is not inherently wrong in all situations.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,971
19,976
855
Describing the embassy vandalism as "Attacking the US" has got to be the most hyperbolic description I've heard, that only the purist of neocons would bother trying out.








So... calling this an 'attack' is the "most hyperbolic description" you've ever heard.

And you call burning out buildings, and attempting to breach other Embassy buildings "vandalism".

You are vandalizing your own integrity, sir.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,117
2,731
495
They'd rather have the right Commander in Chief (Clinton) making the wrong decisions. Fucking psychos...
"It was ok when Kennedy's actions doomed the world to nuclear winter and the world was only saved by the Russians backing down at 30 seconds to midnight!"


"But Trump authorizing a strike at an Iranian general coordinating an attack on Americans and Iraqis in Iraq is clearly the start of WW3!"
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,994
3,711
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
so there’s a very big difference as to when and why he pulled the troops embedded with the kurds. It’s not as black and white as comparing that to when he said he would pull troops out of iraq and Syria. Which by the way he hasn’t done—in fact he’s put more in. I do agree that the people who hate trump will hate him for everything he does and ignore the good thing he does, while his supporters, both politicians and otherwise, are dead loyal to him no matter what he does. Neither of these attitudes are healthy.

yea I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s drone strikes either. Nor bush’s (collateral murder). He also fucked up with the fast and furious just as bush did.

I also think the media wasn’t fair to Obama either, he got shit for putting Dijon mustard on a hot dog, wearing a tan suit, bowing too low when in Saudi Arabia, asked a marine to hold an umbrella over his head while he did a press conference in the rain, took a trip with the First Lady when the economy wasn’t so great, used a selfie stick, didn’t always wear a suit in the White House, didn’t look as powerful in juxtaposition to Putin (hilarious looking back at that now) etc..
There are definite similarities, but also some stark differences between those laughable stories against Obama and the ones against Trump. Fox News and right-leaning sources in general were mocked and delegitmized by the same people that still hold NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc in high regard, even after countless examples showing they're pushing far more of that nonsense and much worse. If Fox is garbage then so is everyone else. Conversely, if media outlets can be treated as reliable sources despite their pitiful coverage then right-leaning sources should be, too. That sort of level playing field is necessary for productive discussions to occur, yet it's often lacking.

As far as mainstream media goes, which includes the entertainment industry - the layered approach lends credibility - it's overwhelmingly liberal and in support of Democrats, so it becomes a lot easier to dismiss news from the right than it is news from the left, even when it's demonstrably false. It's the reason why stories like Russian collusion and "very fine [neo-nazis]" survive as long as they do. Balanced news coverage with a little journalistic integrity would have shut down a lot of what passed as "actual news" these last few years, like "SharpieGate."

Three years of sensationalist, hyperbolic news coverage amplified by social media platforms has a lot of people in constant panic mode, ready to flip out at almost anything, like CNN and co. pushing the idea that war is imminent. It reminds me of Tweek from South Park fearing war with North Korea.

 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,559
39,934
1,170
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
778
992
365
uh CNN interviewing an Iranian general about the missile strike is an actual attempt at doing news

It's the closest CNN has been to a news org in awhile. I don't have any issue with that. Is it partisan? Yes, but it's still relevant info. It's not the same as trying to mislead the public, repeating unverified claims and general lies without any apologies.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,971
19,976
855


Tim Pool, who thinks the drone strike was a huge mistake by Trump [I disagree] finds himself forced to consider another 'Trump slips on a banana peel and does another perfect backflip' scenario in which, through this drone strike, Trump may ultimately have ended US presence in Iraq and got our troops home, as per his stated goals in the region.

Pool isn't completely convinced, and I agree it's impossible for us to know for sure. But in my estimation it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Trump and Iraq decided that killing high ranking Iranian opposition within Iraq would be an effective stepping stone for us leaving [Iran being in disarray during the power vacuum is an advantage for Iraqis friendly to US interests]. And then, at home, Iraqi asking us to leave would force the opposition to Trump's desire to withdraw to quiet down. [This is my take, Tim didn't discuss this part].

An interesting take by Tim I hadn't given thought to until he mentioned it. Not a given, but more likely than WWIII imho.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,584
1,216
920


Tim Pool, who thinks the drone strike was a huge mistake by Trump [I disagree] finds himself forced to consider another 'Trump slips on a banana peel and does another perfect backflip' scenario in which, through this drone strike, Trump may ultimately have ended US presence in Iraq and got our troops home, as per his stated goals in the region.

Pool isn't completely convinced, and I agree it's impossible for us to know for sure. But in my estimation it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Trump and Iraq decided that killing high ranking Iranian opposition within Iraq would be an effective stepping stone for us leaving [Iran being in disarray during the power vacuum is an advantage for Iraqis friendly to US interests]. And then, at home, Iraqi asking us to leave would force the opposition to Trump's desire to withdraw to quiet down. [This is my take, Tim didn't discuss this part].

An interesting take by Tim I hadn't given thought to until he mentioned it. Not a given, but more likely than WWIII imho.
I’d be fine with Iraq asking us to leave let’s get out of there. No sense in trying to help people who don’t want your help.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,629
7,255
460
threatening to attack cultural heritage sites seems like a very blow, something ISIS has done. I wonder how the pro-war Iranian diaspora feels about this. and by cultural sites he most likely means Persepolis and Tomb of Cyrus the Great. This is why you should never vote a fascist into power. I myself supported him and was happy when he won the elections. Never again.
😂😂😂
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
3,467
3,338
600
I believe the point at which I identified Trumpism as a cult is when he literally said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and lose no voters, said Ted Cruz' dad helped assassinate JFK, and continually said for years that Obama was born in Kenya to create his political career.

But, ok, sure, Trump is clearly a totally normal American President and has no cult like tendencies than any other. This is just politics as normal. I can't imagine why leftist kept warning about normalization while people like yourself constantly try to normalize the shit Trump does.




Describing the embassy vandalism as "Attacking the US" has got to be the most hyperbolic description I've heard, that only the purist of neocons would bother trying out. Or describing sending troops into Iraq or Iran as "protecting the US" - Christ even I didn't make such an absurd argument for keeping troops in Syria: they were there to protect allies that helped us. And how about we just withdraw completely from Iraq/Iran so there are no futher hostilities in the first place? Trumps the one who decided to rip up a nuclear deal and place sanctions. And Trumps the one who murdered their top military commander over what amounts to petty vandalism. That shit is ridiculous levels of escalation of his own creation, and its no surprise this is timed to start up in an election year.
Embassy's are soil of the country mate.
 

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
778
992
365
I don't think "Iraqi vote tells us to leave Iraq" is going to work that well on folks that used bad intel, faked chlorine gas attacks, false claims of WMDs, presented false stories of baby killings, lied about the gulf of tonkin and just ran the Russian hoax into national hysteria.

The fact that the Kurds and others sat out the vote can be used to ignore the vote.

The grander idea behind the theory that Trump did this to get out of Iraq is that somehow a quick decision was layered enough to think that the media would turn anti-state to further its anti-Trump push and that the state powers wouldn't dare go against a media they have easily controlled for years.

That's just a weak, bad strategy even if you think it was the strategy.
 

SpartanN92

Gold Member
Sep 7, 2012
3,477
3,239
860
US
USA is getting kicked out of Iraq:

I’m not sure how legitimate this is. There are over 350+ members of Iraqi parliament and it is being reported that the absentee members are part of the Sunni faction and are being harassed/intimidated/threatened etc into not appearing for the vote by the Iranian backed Shia group.

Basically like if no Republicans in the house attended the vote on the impeachment articles because Democrats had threatened them and their families if they showed up for a no vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

TeamGhobad

Member
Oct 15, 2018
3,933
4,195
485
I’m not sure how legitimate this is. There are over 350+ members of Iraqi parliament and it is being reported that the absentee members are part of the Sunni faction and are being harassed/intimidated/threatened etc into not appearing for the vote by the Iranian backed Shia group.

Basically like if no Republicans in the house attended the vote on the impeachment articles because Democrats had threatened them and their families if they showed up for a no vote.
majority are shia, and i believe they needed 165 to pass so sunnis being absent means nothing.
 

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,770
8,403
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
The minute Iran moves in and takes over, America Halp!

I agree, let’s get out of there.
But here's the thing: why does America have to care?

The Middle East has been around long before the U.S was founded. Wars have been fought for thousands of years and people were always being slaughtered in that region for time indefinite.

Just let them continue their own lives. The U.S just being there acts as endless babysitting where every year, the same problems will continue to pop up with no resolve. In which case, it's literally just draining the U.S of its own resources until there is no more money left.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dthomp and finowns

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,559
39,934
1,170
But here's the thing: why does America have to care?

The Middle East has been around long before the U.S was founded. Wars have been fought for thousands of years and people were always being slaughtered in that region for time indefinite.

Just let them continue their own lives. The U.S just being there acts as endless babysitting where every year, the same problems will continue to pop up with no resolve. In which case, it's literally just draining the U.S of its own resources until there is no more money left.
I am A ok with pulling out of there.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,629
7,255
460
Why is that funny? Trump did threaten their cultural sites with air strikes. ISIS also took down cultural sites when they were in power. Whatever you think of the drone strikes no one should be OK with him threatening historical sites which are usually populated with innocent civilians
It’s funny because of the hypocrisy.

If Soleimani and Iran did this, you wouldn’t give a shit.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,994
3,711
1,705
Montreal, Quebec

Carl also considers the possibility this was a plan to exit Iraq under favorable circumstances. Interesting.
He's right, Trump is in a relatively good position. Former CIA director and general David Patreus said as much a couple of days ago in an interview with ForeignPolicy.org:

FP: Two previous administrations have reportedly considered this course of action and dismissed it. Why did Trump act now?

DP: The reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.

Many people had rightly questioned whether American deterrence had eroded somewhat because of the relatively insignificant responses to the earlier actions. This clearly was of vastly greater importance. Of course it also, per the Defense Department statement, was a defensive action given the reported planning and contingencies that Suleimani was going to Iraq to discuss and presumably approve.

This was in response to the killing of an American contractor, the wounding of American forces, and just a sense of how this could go downhill from here if the Iranians don’t realize that this cannot continue.

I like Sargon's "You do start to wonder about that 4D chess." Trump continues making simple moves look like brilliance. If this gives him the opportunity to bring troops home from Iraq without having to worry about the establishment laying the blame for any negative repercussions at his feet then he should take it first chance he gets.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,629
7,255
460
If Iran threatened to blow up the Statue of Liberty or the Lincoln monument no one would care? What?
I’m sorry, are we at war or not?
That’s all you guys have been crying about for days. Iran is going to retaliate and all I’ve heard is how “Trump is asking for it. It’s his fault blah blah blah”

All Trump is saying that we will respond to force with force. Apparently that is to much. 🙄
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,971
19,976
855
I don't think "Iraqi vote tells us to leave Iraq" is going to work that well on folks that used bad intel, faked chlorine gas attacks, false claims of WMDs, presented false stories of baby killings, lied about the gulf of tonkin and just ran the Russian hoax into national hysteria.
Nor do I, but that would not necessarily stop Trump using this as cover to remove troops and would make it harder to oppose it.

The fact that the Kurds and others sat out the vote can be used to ignore the vote.
Sure, but the vote still occured and can therefore be used to justify action. Politics don't need to follow logically since most of the populace isn't paying attention to begin with. See impeachment.

The grander idea behind the theory that Trump did this to get out of Iraq is that somehow a quick decision was layered enough to think that the media would turn anti-state to further its anti-Trump push and that the state powers wouldn't dare go against a media they have easily controlled for years.

That's just a weak, bad strategy even if you think it was the strategy.
You are making a huge assumption that this was a 'quick decision'. While certainly possible, the plan could have been in holding formation for a year or more, waiting for a suitable target to present itself. For all we know, Soleimani was set up. We can't really trust any reporting on the topic - it's not like the WH would ever tell us 'his second in command ratted him out', or 'Iraqi/Iranian double agent reported his whereabouts'. This could have been a kill of opportunity or a kill that took 2 years.

I am not arguing 'this is what happened' because i think it did, just pointing out how it might have happened. We will see. If Trump moves troops out of Iraq in the next year and a half or so, I'd say it would gain credence. In the next 6 months, a lot of credence. I give a long time period because these things often move slow.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,806
4,336
1,055
It’s the same Clinton News Network that had Richard Spencer on, so...
Wait until the news have to decide if they want to cover AntiFa's protest on killing of Qassam Soleimeni while attempting to carefully ignore and crop out the extreme right who also are against this. Richard Spencer's discussion on twitter has been making strange bedfellows with the extreme left on this particular situation.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
I’m sorry, are we at war or not?
That’s all you guys have been crying about for days. Iran is going to retaliate and all I’ve heard is how “Trump is asking for it. It’s his fault blah blah blah”

All Trump is saying that we will respond to force with force. Apparently that is to much. 🙄
no he said he would target cultural sites, which have civilians in them. Which is what ISIS did.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,559
39,934
1,170
Wait until the news have to decide if they want to cover AntiFa's protest on killing of Qassam Soleimeni while attempting to carefully ignore and crop out the extreme right who also are against this. Richard Spencer's discussion on twitter has been making strange bedfellows with the extreme left on this particular situation.
Almost as if they are part of the same coin. 🤔
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: desertdroog

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,806
4,336
1,055
Some intern is getting fired in the morning:
Yeah, they need to review what the President can do:

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

� � � �The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.


� � � � The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.


� � � � The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.


� � � �September 25, 2001

More information:


Wikipedia on the AUMF:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: A Regular Guy

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,770
8,403
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
fixing infrastructure, lowering student loan interest rates, improving education. Nah. Let’s blow up countries instead

At least in this example, he's not wrong. I did point out in the first page that the U.S does outspend the entire world on military.

Now imagine if America used all that military power to enforce their own isolationism? The U.S could easily become an impenetrable fortress that makes it impossible for any outside power to sneak inside undetected.
 
Last edited:

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
900
688
380
Three trident missiles and this Middle East mess is over with. That’s all it would take. Tehran would be gone, Baghdad would be gone. The third one somewhere in Yemen. Then we laugh as we bring our troops home and laugh. Israel can have what’s left to do with as they please.
 
Last edited:
  • Triggered
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,707
402
915
Three trident missiles and this Middle East mess is over with. That’s all it would take. Tehran would be gone, Baghdad would be gone. The third one somewhere in Yemen. Then we laugh as we bring our troops home and laugh. Israel can have what’s left to do with as they please.
Your solution is to kill millions of civilians and then laugh about it?

Congrats, you're a piece of shite and a fucking moron to boot.