After this's all over, I hope the U.S. gov't bills Trump for the damage he's done to our reputation

[Achtane]

the united states just murdered with a missile the iranian general who defeated isis, and the president announced the missile strike by posting a jpeg-artifacted american flag on his personal twitter account

#foreverwar2020

[Faldoe]

the united states just murdered with a missile the iranian general who defeated isis, and the president announced the missile strike by posting a jpeg-artifacted american flag on his personal twitter account

#foreverwar2020

Where is that quote from?

Suleimani was shia so the battle with ISIS isn't/wasn't necessarily one of total moral high-ground. I'm not legitimizing his assassination with that comment but that whole area is a tribal/strategic cluster fuck with all kinds of motives at play.

All the while, Suleimani has clocked up gains. While US forces were in Iraq, the Iraqi militias that Suleimani armed and backed accounted for around 25% of all US battle casualties – according to US figures. In Syria since early 2012, he directed the fightback of the Syrian regime against opposition groups. There, as happened in Iraq, large numbers of ideologically driven sectarian militias were summoned from across the Shia diaspora to fight alongside the beleaguered forces of Bashar al-Assad.

This is from a 2014 Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver ... amic-state

His activities have made him a repeated target of the U.S. Treasury: Soleimani has been sanctioned by the United States for the Quds Force’s support for Lebanon’s Hezbollah and other armed groups, for his role in Syria’s crackdown against protesters and his alleged involvement in a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

Soleimani’s success in advancing Iran’s agenda has also put him in the crosshairs of regional foes Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Top Saudi intelligence officials looked into the possibility of assassinating Soleimani in 2017, according to a report in the New York Times late last year. A Saudi government spokesman declined to comment, the Times reported, but Israeli military officials have publicly discussed the possibility of targeting him.

From Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran ... SKCN1QM1BW

[Faldoe]

Almost 13 months. Next inauguration is January 2021.

Beyond the concern about enough prion disease spread giving him a second term, there is the frighteningly real possibility that Shitshow would dismiss a loss as fraud and try to hold onto power. The one great tradition of the presidency is the peaceful transition of power, and most talk of Washington walking away after two terms. Adams walking away after a bitter loss after one term is more important, really. Shitshow is likely to stress test the fuck out of this norm.

Castro and Harris are out but Bloomberg and Steyer are still in. If a billionaire is the Democratic nominee, better than Shitshow but still a strong indicator of a failed state.

I don't see Bloomberg or Steyer making it up that high. Maybe Bloomberg could get some ground but not Steyer. And if they did become the nominee: Really an indicator of a failed state? Better an actual qualified politician and successful/actual billionaire versus a false one.

Not saying it's those only two options but the whole blaming/shaming/scapegoating people like billionaires doesn't get people anywhere. It's good simplistic political rhetoric. This is not to saying billionaires shouldn't pay their share of taxes, etc.

I like Bernie but he plays this, so does Warren.

[jirodreamsofdank]

Suleimani was shia so the battle with ISIS isn't/wasn't necessarily one of total moral high-ground. I'm not legitimizing his assassination with that comment but that whole area is a tribal/strategic cluster fuck with all kinds of motives at play.

Blowing minds here. You mean Iran's motives are... political?!

THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.

[jirodreamsofdank]

So...


My Facebook's full of people freaking out that we're gonna go to war with Iran, which I fucking doubt. But, admittedly unsurprising start to 2020.

The GOP and a large part of our military brass have had a hard-on for war with Iran since 1979, Iraq was supposed to be a stepping stone to Tehran (oooooops). If Iran's response isn't measured and shadowy enough to avoid a full Gulf of Tonkin moment, they could have their wish.

I'd like to think it's inconceivable - boots on the ground in Iran equals Vietnam-level body bags, Democrats might actually show some spine in an election year - but who the fuck knows at this point. Even a proxy conflict throughout the Middle East is going to kill a massive number of people and fuck the global economy up.

[jrfox92]

The GOP and a large part of our military brass have had a hard-on for war with Iran since 1979, Iraq was supposed to be a stepping stone to Tehran (oooooops). If Iran's response isn't measured and shadowy enough to avoid a full Gulf of Tonkin moment, they could have their wish.

I'd like to think it's inconceivable - boots on the ground in Iran equals Vietnam-level body bags, Democrats might actually show some spine in an election year - but who the fuck knows at this point. Even a proxy conflict throughout the Middle East is going to kill a massive number of people and fuck the global economy up.

That's why I doubt there'll be an actual "war". Supposedly the GOP has wanted it for three fucking decades and it still hasn't happened, so the only thing I can think of that would actually make it happen would be if Trump actually initiated an invasion.
We've been in proxy conflicts against Iran since 1982 and I haven't seen people crowing about it until now. Bosnia, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Qatar, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Morocco and more. Iran's been busy starting shit just like the US has, it's just that, for some reason, certain Americans keep buying the bullshit that comes from their state media claiming they "dindu nuffin". Iran's been deeply involved with all kinds of conflict which ended with American deaths and we still haven't gone to war with them. So, I don't know, I just don't buy that Iran would be willing to risk their entire country being, at the very least, pummeled with missiles and airstrikes because one general got killed because he was a major part of an attack on an American embassy.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they really are just stupid enough to risk losing their entire country over one asshole.

[Faldoe]

Suleimani was shia so the battle with ISIS isn't/wasn't necessarily one of total moral high-ground. I'm not legitimizing his assassination with that comment but that whole area is a tribal/strategic cluster fuck with all kinds of motives at play.

Blowing minds here. You mean Iran's motives are... political?!

THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED.

The quote I referenced mentioned him being responsible for the defeat of ISIS which seems to suggest - or I inferred (maybe my mistake) - that he was someone I good guy.

[Dandolin]

Daphne approves of new thread title.

[jirodreamsofdank]

it's just that, for some reason, certain Americans keep buying the bullshit that comes from their state media claiming they "dindu nuffin".

[jirodreamsofdank]

The quote I referenced mentioned him being responsible for the defeat of ISIS which seems to suggest - or I inferred (maybe my mistake) - that he was someone I good guy.

It was a statement of fact that he played (and was continuing to play) a leading role in beating back ISIL/S. No, Iran and Soleimani didn't do so for altruistic reasons but boy have I got a shocker for you about geopolitics in general...

[Chankgeez]

Daphne approves of new thread title.

[jirodreamsofdank]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5732527112

[Faldoe]

The quote I referenced mentioned him being responsible for the defeat of ISIS which seems to suggest - or I inferred (maybe my mistake) - that he was someone I good guy.

It was a statement of fact that he played (and was continuing to play) a leading role in beating back ISIL/S. No, Iran and Soleimani didn't do so for altruistic reasons but boy have I got a shocker for you about geopolitics in general...

You left out what I also said about him being responsible for the deaths of American service men and women. Not just Iran want fighting ISIS for ethnical reasons but they also hate the US. Which isn’t a good thing, despite the edgy trend to hate one’s own country.

[jirodreamsofdank]

You left out what I also said about him being responsible for the deaths of American service men and women.

[jirodreamsofdank]

But seriously, that's irrelevant to the statement that he was a leading force in fighting back against ISIL.

Of course, most of the warmongers in government and the military were open to the idea of funding ISIS because they were a counterbalance to Iran...