That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=80511
"I have mixed feelings about his death, but mostly worry for my friends and family back home. This will be bad for them or worse for them"LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:03 pm "I have not been a Trump supporter in the past but now I will be..."
Iranian-american [wo]man-on-the-street interviewed by local ABC affiliate here.
or 
The impeachment noose has been tightening and that Senate acquittal is looking a little less like a slam-dunk as new evidence keeps mounting up. Time for some different headlines, and ideally some frenzied flag-waving.
)I wonder what has happened over the last few years to make them all 'macho' and uppity?
Trump got elected by saying what his crowd wanted to hear. "Build a wall" etc. His base expects him to follow through. Tough talk was also part of his populist appeal. His supporters are the type who believe missiles and bombs solve any problem and we should use them. That's why I believe he did this, it is a hardcore move. Whether you approve of it or not, you have to admit he delivered a smack to the face of Iran.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:48 pm Two things are true: Suleimani has been behind a lot of mischief in the region, is responsible for hundreds of American deaths over the years, and would surely have continued merrily along that path; and, assassinating a rival government official is an act of war. For those who take a transactional view of foreign policy, the big question is how many more deaths will be caused by his murder.
One other thing is PROBABLY true (if unprovable): Trump is winging it, and he has no new Iran policy after "kick the hornet's nest and see what happens." He is only concerned with how it affects his reelection chances.
I'd say it very much depends on your point of view. From the perspective of people in the middle east that have seen families and children ripped apart by similar drone strikes, I doub't they are somehow going to see us as the good guys. Also, he was the equivalent of a cabinet minister. It's one thing to get someone from Al-Queda, and entirely another to kill a governmental minister in cold blood. Are we ok with other governments assassinating our people? If nothing else, it's a significant escalation and provocation.Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:00 pmI get what you’re saying, but this is wrong on many levels.
Suleimani was a very bad actor, responsible for many terrorist attacks including the recent attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that killed an American contractor and injured others.
...
But that doesn’t make us “the baddies.”
I'm a little concerned by the reference to sites important "to Iranian culture". I wish I had more faith that Trump wouldn't order a missile strike on some ancient mosque.
He also got elected by renouncing entanglements in the Middle East, so that could come back and bite him if the Iranians can rope-a-dope.gameoverman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:07 pmTrump got elected by saying what his crowd wanted to hear. "Build a wall" etc. His base expects him to follow through. Tough talk was also part of his populist appeal. His supporters are the type who believe missiles and bombs solve any problem and we should use them. That's why I believe he did this, it is a hardcore move. Whether you approve of it or not, you have to admit he delivered a smack to the face of Iran.Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:48 pm Two things are true: Suleimani has been behind a lot of mischief in the region, is responsible for hundreds of American deaths over the years, and would surely have continued merrily along that path; and, assassinating a rival government official is an act of war. For those who take a transactional view of foreign policy, the big question is how many more deaths will be caused by his murder.
One other thing is PROBABLY true (if unprovable): Trump is winging it, and he has no new Iran policy after "kick the hornet's nest and see what happens." He is only concerned with how it affects his reelection chances.
Can/will Iran do anything notable about it? That's what has me in suspense. If Iran can punch us hard in the face then this will hurt Trump. If they can't deliver on their threats then Trump will come out looking like a hero. So those of us who'd like to see someone else elected are essentially stuck hoping Iran can make him pay, which means hurting our country, which is an odd thing to be rooting for.
Totally normal for the President of the United States to threaten non-military, culturally important sites of a sovereign nation for destruction. Totally. Normal.
They needn't be countless. One source said that 604 American deaths over the past 2-3 decades can be pinned on Suleimani. Maybe he could have killed 600 more over the rest of his life? So, let's see how many Americans die in conflict with Iran and its proxies during the rest of Trump's reign and its aftermath. I fear that it will be more than 600.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:24 pm My problem is that even if Trump and his advisors were completely 100% correct in pulling this stunt, and did save countless American lives through this action, there's not a chance in hell I'd believe it. He has completely and utterly shredded any chance of me believing that anything he does is in the interest of the country and not of his bank account.
This 600 number is all over conservative media. It is the tally of soldiers killed in Iraq by roadside bombs over a couple of year which they are now laying entirely at his feet. It is propaganda. We shouldn't buy into this bullshit. Again.Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:13 amThey needn't be countless. One source said that 604 American deaths over the past 2-3 decades can be pinned on Suleimani. Maybe he could have killed 600 more over the rest of his life? So, let's see how many Americans die in conflict with Iran and its proxies during the rest of Trump's reign and its aftermath. I fear that it will be more than 600.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:24 pm My problem is that even if Trump and his advisors were completely 100% correct in pulling this stunt, and did save countless American lives through this action, there's not a chance in hell I'd believe it. He has completely and utterly shredded any chance of me believing that anything he does is in the interest of the country and not of his bank account.
This is where I start to feel like we’re in an upside down world where people cannot even agree on things that are objectively true. It’s not propaganda that Suleimani was (1) a very bad actor, (2) an enemy of the United States, and (3) a clear and present danger to US interests. If people weren’t familiar with him and the IRGC and Quds before now, they haven’t been paying attention.malchior wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:51 amThis 600 number is all over conservative media. It is the tally of soldiers killed in Iraq by roadside bombs over a couple of year which they are now laying entirely at his feet. It is propaganda. We shouldn't buy into this bullshit. Again.Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:13 amThey needn't be countless. One source said that 604 American deaths over the past 2-3 decades can be pinned on Suleimani. Maybe he could have killed 600 more over the rest of his life? So, let's see how many Americans die in conflict with Iran and its proxies during the rest of Trump's reign and its aftermath. I fear that it will be more than 600.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:24 pm My problem is that even if Trump and his advisors were completely 100% correct in pulling this stunt, and did save countless American lives through this action, there's not a chance in hell I'd believe it. He has completely and utterly shredded any chance of me believing that anything he does is in the interest of the country and not of his bank account.
None of this is to say that I’m cheerleading this attack or that I’m at all confident in the decision making process that led us here. But I stand by my earlier position that taking out a guy like Suleimani - in and of itself - doesn’t make us the bad guys.Soleimani was the head of the Quds (or Jerusalem) Force, an ultra-elite group focused on overseas operations, such as developing and managing proxy militias, along with military intelligence work.
Through the Quds Force, Iran has cultivated Shiite militias in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, while also supporting groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the late 1990s, Soleimani was given command of the unit.
The Trump administration has blamed the deaths of over 600 coalition soldiers in Iraq on Soleimani and the pro-Iran militias he formed and directed. As head of the Quds Force, Soleimani was also a key architect of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal attacks on anti-government protesters and rebels in the now nine-year war.
Soleimani . . . was both revered and reviled for having had a hand in so many of the attacks and wars that have shaped events and daily life in the Middle East in recent decades.
I don’t think you really mean that. If you did, “odd” wouldn’t be the word I’d use to describe that rooting interest.gameoverman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:07 pmSo those of us who'd like to see someone else elected are essentially stuck hoping Iran can make him pay, which means hurting our country, which is an odd thing to be rooting for.
So it isn't Fox News hyperbole, it is Trump administration's hyperbole.Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:43 am And this isn’t Fox News hyperbole:
The Trump administration has blamed the deaths of over 600 coalition soldiers in Iraq on Soleimani and the pro-Iran militias he formed and directed.
Sure that is true. That also doesn't mean that whatever we do is 'good guy' behavior. However, what I actually was referring to was that the DOD does tons of bullshit studies like the one that came up with this 600 number. They aren't supposed to see the light of day until they kill someone. It is part of their war planning. They present options to the President and want to make sure they are backed up by some legal backing. Fine. I get it but they then push it out the door because they are counting on our collective blood lust for endless war. And they get that support *every time* no matter how unwise it is. That is what makes us bad guys. Many don't want to see it for what it is - that is all I'm saying. No one wants to admit they are the bad guy. And again I stress this wasn't a good guy but as much as we want it to be true we aren't the 'good guy with a gun taking out a bad guy'.Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:43 amThis is where I start to feel like we’re in an upside down world where people cannot even agree on things that are objectively true. It’s not propaganda that Suleimani was (1) a very bad actor, (2) an enemy of the United States, and (3) a clear and present danger to US interests. If people weren’t familiar with him and the IRGC and Quds before now, they haven’t been paying attention.malchior wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:51 amThis 600 number is all over conservative media. It is the tally of soldiers killed in Iraq by roadside bombs over a couple of year which they are now laying entirely at his feet. It is propaganda. We shouldn't buy into this bullshit. Again.Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 12:13 amThey needn't be countless. One source said that 604 American deaths over the past 2-3 decades can be pinned on Suleimani. Maybe he could have killed 600 more over the rest of his life? So, let's see how many Americans die in conflict with Iran and its proxies during the rest of Trump's reign and its aftermath. I fear that it will be more than 600.YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:24 pm My problem is that even if Trump and his advisors were completely 100% correct in pulling this stunt, and did save countless American lives through this action, there's not a chance in hell I'd believe it. He has completely and utterly shredded any chance of me believing that anything he does is in the interest of the country and not of his bank account.
The decision making process when you use the power of the United States to kill someone isn't *paramount*? We killed the leader of another nation while he was in our 'ally's' country. Without so much as a heads up. It was incredibly unwise. More so it has to be seen in the context that this is definitely a descendant of the pet project to remake the mid-east. We broke the middle-east because we thought we could remake it in our image. Our 'very serious people' cheer-leaded that. And that makes us bad guys.None of this is to say that I’m cheerleading this attack or that I’m at all confident in the decision making process that led us here. But I stand by my earlier position that taking out a guy like Suleimani - in and of itself - doesn’t make us the bad guys.
Friendly advice for the future. When giving options to the Manchild in Chief make extra certain to leave “tactical limited nuclear strikes” off the table.Holman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:55 am
Everything coming out about the planning and the preparation for this strike undermines the idea that S. was a “clear and present danger” who had to be stopped immediately.
This was just Trump reaching for the biggest stick and the biggest distraction. And his announced intention to strike non-military targets certainly sounds “baddie” enough for the rest of the world.
That was what stood out to me on the first reading. Spending lives in war has to have a purpose. That purpose is not in blowing up museums, monuments, or mosques. That isn't war, that's terrorism.
On the bright side, at least the debate over war crimes is complete now that we're openly admitting to planning them.Blackhawk wrote:That was what stood out to me on the first reading. Spending lives in war has to have a purpose. That purpose is not in blowing up museums, monuments, or mosques. That isn't war, that's terrorism.