Did world war 3 just start?

[T.Lex]

The more I think about it, this is very reminiscent of Obama's unprincipled foreign policy. Trump may well have had better targeting intel, and is going after people more related to actual sovereigns (instead of just terrorists), but this really is a slight extension of the drone strike policy.

And again, that ain't great.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why were the Iraq civilians celebrating in the streets?

They were probably Shias. Nevertheless, those Iraq civilians aren't the government of Iraq, to which I was referring.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

I am unaware of Jesus making such a prediction in scripture. Book:Chapter:Verse?

 

[BugI02]

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.

IMO the Yamamoto shoot down was more revenge than strategic, the eventual defeat of Japan was inevitable once the island campaign began. The board was set, and although Imperial Japanese forces would miss him I don't think his absence would materially affect the outcome. It was even named Operation Vengeance

 

[ArcadiaGP]

One comment I liked on the situation:

"Can't wait for the new Ben Affleck movie in a few years."

 

[BugI02]

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.

Then most of you haven't been paying attention. Search on his name and set the time parameters to, say, 1 Jan 2019 to 30 Sep 2019. He has had a prominent presence in Syria propping up Assad. He was already a state sponsored bin Laden type, a field general deeply involved in planning operations; and it seemed he may have wanted a more Arafat-level role in events

The ME is better off without him, and the lesson that anyone can be gotten to is a valuable lesson to teach

 

[Trigger Time]

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.

They act like they dont want us there publicly and they lie to their people about us.
But they crave our money and support.
We will be in Iraq forever. It's the new turkey. Or better yet, the new south korea

 

[BugI02]

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.

Meh, we just say we were after al-Muhandis (who has killed American's by his own admission) and didn't even know Soleimani was there. Collateral damage, sorry about that.

Maybe 'diplomats' should arrive openly and announce their intentions while in a conflict zone

 

[T.Lex]

Soleimani's closest analog in the US command and control is probably General Kenneth McKenzie, head of CENTCOM.

His security detail has probably gotten more intense.

 

[Trigger Time]

Soleimani's closest analog in the US command and control is probably General Kenneth McKenzie, head of CENTCOM.

His security detail has probably gotten more intense.

You give Iran too much credit.
They are vermin who prey on easy targets. They are more likely to attack more ships or oil facilities

 

[Phase2]

Nice of them to point him out...

 

[BugI02]

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.

I believe that what defines a terrorist is the choice of targets. With Soleimani, the Madas Sharqi fits

 

[Route 45]

Nice of them to point him out...

 

[drillsgt]

I am unaware of Jesus making such a prediction in scripture. Book:Chapter:Verse?

Swing and a miss but good try.

 

[Phase2]

Interesting that Obama removed sanctions from Soleimani as part of his Iran policy and advised other Arabs to use similar tactics. Certainly didn't have any positive effect on his involvement in terrorism.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

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.

He's not an Iranian military leader, though, like the media is building him up to be. The official military is the Iranian Army.

Soleimani was a major general of the IRGC, commander of Quds Force... essentially mafias of Ayatollahs and terrorists.

 

[Ziggidy]

They were probably Shias. Nevertheless, those Iraq civilians aren't the government of Iraq, to which I was referring.

I believe the trump haters will side with the American socialist party and the Trump supporters will support the courageous decision Trump made.

The socialist party probably just wanted to draw a line in the sand and have it be over with.

Maybe he should have consulted Hillary?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

He's not an Iranian military leader, though, like the media is building him up to be. The official military is the Iranian Army.

Soleimani was a major general of the IRGC, commander of Quds Force... essentially mafias of Ayatollahs and terrorists.

I think the first part of this isn't exactly right. As I understand their Order of Battle, he did hold a rank in the conventional Iranian military. Now, the Quds is included in that, AND is the enforcement arm of the religious leadership. Both are true.

It would be as if our POTUS had direct control over Delta Force to enforce executive orders. They would still be part of the US military, but also engage in asymmetric battles.

 

[BugI02]

Well, terrorist general vs an AGM-114 or AGM-179 is about as asymmetric as it gets

 

[Route 45]

Despite all of this saber rattling and talk of war with Iran, I'm a bit more concerned about having to send troops to Virginia in the near future.