Did world war 3 just start?

[Hawkeye]

Where's "The Squad" on this? Im surprised they aren't trying to grab headlines...

 

[jamil]

You're not wondering. You know damn well. And you put forgot to use quotes with "ally." Iraq wants as muscle they can uses at their discretion or they want us out.

I don’t think we can say Iraq anything. It’s not a house united. This is a Shia vs Sunni thing. I think the Sunni reluctantly want us there. The Iran l-friendly Shia want us gone. Allies indeed.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

But then the targeted killing of Soleimani - which is undoubtedly an escalation - suggests we are either already in a shooting war or are willing to be.

Otherwise, what's the strategic reason for the destabilization? We have much to lose by either a withdrawal scenario or new, multi-front war.

"Target of Opportunity" carries the weight of shooting down a Japanese Admiral's plane in the Pacific.

This, like the CBS Special Report alert, overlooks the fact that the embassy attack was an overt act of war - which Iran then foolishly claimed. And, sent their top general to plan more mayhem in Iraq.

Iran overplayed their hand and banked upon the eternal restraint of the US and believed their own rhetoric that Trump is a paper tiger.

Both the "success" of their continual rocket attacks in finally killing an American and the attack on the embassy crossed red lines in the sand.

The mullahs and Soleimani were foolish in giving Trump/America to retaliate for the embassy attack in a very meaningful way that DOES NOT inspire the Iranian public to rally to the mullahs the way an attack on Iranian soil would. Likely the opposite... tremendous blunder for the mullahs.

 

[T.Lex]

I don’t think we can say Iraq anything. It’s not a house united. This is a Shia vs Sunni thing. I think the Sunni reluctantly want us there. The Iran l-friendly Shia want us gone. Allies indeed.

That's a great point, too.

So maybe we should support a split of Iraq into 3rds, which was a good idea 20 years ago, and probably still is. We'll help support the Kurds and the Sunnis for as long as they'll have us.

 

[T.Lex]

This, like the CBS Special Report alert, overlooks the fact that the embassy attack was an overt act of war - which Iran then foolishly claimed. And, sent their top general to plan more mayhem in Iraq.

Iran overplayed their hand and banked upon the eternal restraint of the US and believed their own rhetoric that Trump is a paper tiger.

Both the "success" of their continual rocket attacks in finally killing an American and the attack on the embassy crossed red lines in the sand.

The mullahs and Soleimani were foolish in giving Trump/America to retaliate for the embassy attack in a very meaningful way that DOES NOT inspire the Iranian public to rally to the mullahs the way an attack on Iranian soil would.

If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.

If the embassy attack was Pearl Harbor, so be it. But the history of shadow wars is not kind to the US.

 

[KG1]

One would have to think there was a strategic interest in taking out Soleimani and not simply just a target of opportunity. I'll bet there have been plans in the works for doing so for quite some time.

 

[PaulF]

Could be the president has called, time to put up or shut up

If Iraq doesn't want us there, they can tell us to leave and 'boom' off ramp to the Iraq war

If the Shias don't want us there, then they'll have to do all the heavy lifting if they don't want to be dominated by Iran or live in fear of being blown up by Sunni-aligned terrorist groups

People that think now Iraq will descend into chaos haven't been paying attention, and if we're not asked to leave we'll have a freer hand once the double-dealing Salih regime stares into the abyss for a bit. Tough to play both sides against each other when one side won't play

...Or...

...this could just be another point scored in and endless tit-for-tat proxy war tended at a low simmer. I don't honestly see how this changes anyting. Election season has Democrats clutching their pearls and Republicans peacocking around like buffoons. As far as I can see Iran still has the upper hand in the middle east.

A trillion-dollar deficit. An openly partizan judiciary presiding over a hopelessly broken for-profit 'judicial system'. Endless foreign war...all products of a government that can fulfill only one promise: that tomorrow they'll take more.

It amazes me how many people wrap themselves in the idelogical languange of liberty...but, in behavior...are really only interested in partizan point scoring. It's theatre. Nobody wins the game, it just keeps going in never-ending super-double-emergency sudden-death champonship playoff overtime face-off brinksmanship...all the while our liberty shrinks and our government grows.

...now back to the game.

 

[jamil]

That's a great point, too.

So maybe we should support a split of Iraq into 3rds, which was a good idea 20 years ago, and probably still is. We'll help support the Kurds and the Sunnis for as long as they'll have us.

I thought that was a good idea at the time. I don’t think Trump is capable of seeing that through. He seems a bit too cozy with Turkey.

 

[KG1]

Here's a bat**** crazy take from actress Rose McGowan



https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1212976832544460801

I'm sure she could find her way to Iran if she really tried hard enough. Go there.

 

[PaulF]

If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.

If the embassy attack was Pearl Harbor, so be it. But the history of shadow wars is not kind to the US.

We are at constant war with whomever the executive chooses, for whatever reason the executive chooses, in whatever place the executive chooses...and we have been ever since we got the AUMF shoved down our gullets by the Bush administration in 2001.

We are on our third president with "Emergency" war powers.

If this were a movie, our goverment would definitely be the bad guys.

 

[Ziggidy]

Is that honestly a “bad” thing if he ordered it? Taking out a top general that operating against our forces in Iraq. Now, I opposed pulling out of the Iran deal, but that ship has sailed. Iran is now directlyputting American lives in danger. I might throw up, but I might have to give the president credit for something else.

It IS a bad thing and here's why. Regardless if you like Trump or not, the USA just stood up to attacks on our service men in Iraq. Lead and supported by the terrorist we took down. This is time to stand together in support of America and not, within minutes, try to implicate Trump doing something very bad. Whose side are the media on?

There is a time for everything. That was not the time.

Shortly after the attack on our embassy, the left came out with statements that this was Trumps Benghazi. How inappropriate is that? If servicepersons were lost, they'd be all over Trump. No servicemen were lost and he responded in order to prevent further attacks; attacks that could certainly have been another Benghazi. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

The USA has been dealing with Iran for decades and we finally get a president who is standing up for America and we have people dragging him (and the USA) down. People need to be a part of what is right with America and stop with the hatred for Trump.

 

[Kutnupe14]

CNBC: Op-Ed: America just took out a man many consider the world’s No. 1 bad guy
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/trump-just-took-out-the-worlds-biggest-bad-guy-qassim-soleimani.html

Very interesting read... if accurate, and my gut instinct says it is, Soleimani was the "mastermind" instrumental in implementing the mullahs' regional desires and leaves very difficult shoes to fill.

Also, the real focus should be on him being in Iraq immediately following the embassy attack, which focuses on he was planning Iran's next attack. Also, a large number of Iranians are feeling the economic pressure at home and do not support all of the money being spent abroad.

Bottom line, this was a strategic win... took out a strategic asset of Iran's adventurism that will not be easily, nor quickly replaced AND drives another wedge between the mullahs and a large number of everyday Iranians. The threat to the mullahs in further escalating is not just American retaliation - they crossed the line killing Americans and attacking the embassy - but also a revolt and coup.

Whomever wrote that is an idiot. #1 bad guy in the world, and yet most of us (even me) had never heard of the guy until he was dead. At most, he's #2, because he still has to take orders from someone. Besides Rouhani, I think both Kim and Bin Salman are worse.

 

[T.Lex]

I thought that was a good idea at the time. I don’t think Trump is capable of seeing that through. He seems a bit too cozy with Turkey.

He's also too mercurial.

A partitioned Iraq would require commitment. That's not his strong suit.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If we're at war, then POTUS should say so and we should have a public discourse on it.

If the embassy attack was Pearl Harbor, so be it. But the history of shadow wars is not kind to the US.

We are not at war with Iran. These retaliatory strikes give the mullahs a slight taste of what that would be like.

I do agree that POTUS should address the nation on who this terrorist was and why it was appropriate... and also to say that we are not at war with Iran or the Iranian people, nor do we wish to be... only the mullahs want that.

And, the embassy attack, while an "act of war" was definitely NOT a Pearl Harbor. But it was definitely more serious than proxy rocket-lobbing.

Anti-ship missiles in the straits of Hormuz, for example, would be something closer to that... of course, the mullahs have always had the resources to start an all-out war.

 

[Ziggidy]

Well, the question needs to be asked. Why are we still in Iraq? It's obvious that they don't want us there, and it been that way for a while.

Why were the Iraq civilians celebrating in the streets?

 

[T.Lex]

We are at constant war with whomever the executive chooses, for whatever reason the executive chooses, in whatever place the executive chooses...and we have been ever since we got the AUMF shoved down our gullets by the Bush administration in 2001.

We are on our third president with "Emergency" war powers.

If this were a movie, our goverment would definitely be the bad guys.

Our government couldn't pass a purity test, but neither could any other. Our system isn't perfect, but its the best one available.

Regardless, the AUMF does totally need to end, and either replaced or ... not.

 

[T.Lex]

We are not at war with Iran. These retaliatory strikes give the mullahs a slight taste of what that would be like.

I do agree that POTUS should address the nation on who this terrorist was and why it was appropriate... and also to say that we are not at war with Iran or the Iranian people, nor do we wish to be... only the mullahs want that.

And, the embassy attack, while an "act of war" was definitely NOT a Pearl Harbor. But it was definitely more serious than proxy rocket-lobbing.

Anti-ship missiles in the straits of Hormuz, for example, would be something closer to that... of course, the mullahs have always had the resources to start an all-out war.

Well, if we're not at war, then the assassination wasn't a target of opportunity. It was a political assassination conducted on the soil of a foreign sovereign who did not consent to it.

That's not a good look.

Putin, however, approves of the justification.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Whomever wrote that is an idiot. #1 bad guy in the world, and yet most of us (even me) had never heard of the guy until he was dead. At most, he's #2, because he still has to take orders from someone. Besides Rouhani, I think both Kim and Bin Salman are worse.

Did you read beyond the headline? Iran is the number one ACTIVE terrorist state in the world, and Soleimani is the one who has turned the mullahs' wishes into reality.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It IS a bad thing and here's why. Regardless if you like Trump or not, the USA just stood up to attacks on our service men in Iraq. Lead and supported by the terrorist we took down. This is time to stand together in support of America and not, within minutes, try to implicate Trump doing something very bad. Whose side are the media on?

There is a time for everything. That was not the time.

Shortly after the attack on our embassy, the left came out with statements that this was Trumps Benghazi. How inappropriate is that? If serviceperson were lost, they'd ball over Trump. No servicemen were lost and he responded in order to prevent further attacks; attacks that could certainly have been another Benghazi. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

The USA has been dealing with Iran for decades and we finally get a president who is standing up for America and we have people dragging him (and the USA) down. People need to be a part of what is right with America and stop with the hatred for Trump.

First, we need to get our words right. You, like the media, and other outlets, have been calling Solemaini a "terrorist." He wasn't a terrorist. He led Irans SpecOps to further the interests of his nation. He may have been the enemy, and possible a war criminal, but he was military and while on the wrong side of right, he is no more guilty of being a terrorist than other SpecOps commanders.

Secondly, you say that they were "pointing fingers (in a bad way)" towards Trump. I don't know if we saw different reporting, but I also watched a CBS report, by a woman, and they were conjecturing if Trump had ordered the strike. I didn't take that they were blaming him for taking out the guy, but they did wonder aloud that if Trump had made the call, then there was sure to be an Iranian response. That seemed reasonable to me.

 

[drillsgt]

Well, the question needs to be asked. Why are we still in Iraq? It's obvious that they don't want us there, and it been that way for a while. The president ran on getting us out of the ME, and yet we're still there. Why? Maybe someone else with a higher pay grade knows, but I don't see what in our interest to stay there.

I don't know why we're still there but I'd go back and ask your hero first. He pledged the last american soldier would leave the border by the end of 2011, I guess that didn't work out either.