The US assasinated Iran's Qassem Soleimani - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15057460
anasawad wrote:@blackjack21
Trump's role is insignificant, so as the American role in general.
The revolution is internal by the masses of people sick and tired of them and their tyranny after this many decades.

It may be insignificant to those who want a revolution in Iran. However, Trump's role is clearly significant to the Iranian regime. Carter's administration was brought down by Carter's failure to defend the US embassy in Tehran (among other things). Obama was able to get re-elected in spite of Benghazi, but it was a "Lord Jim" moment if you're a Joseph Conrad fan. The US media covered for Obama and he was re-elected, but in the eyes of men like Putin, Obama was perceived as a cream puff. Obama confirmed that by failing to back up his red line in the sand not even a year later. I was amazed that US adversaries didn't take more advantage at the time, but eventually Putin did by annexing Crimea.

Iran has been baiting Trump into an attack. It seems motivated by a need to galvanize public opinion in Iran against an external enemy. Trump has not taken the bait. The current response by Trump in killing Soleimani--especially since the Department of Defense indicated that the operation was done at the direction of Trump himself--isn't likely to galvanize public opinion in Iran against the US, it does actual damage to the Quds leadership and organization, and has likely shaken Iranian leadership to a significant degree. We shall see how they respond.

benpenguin wrote:I am actually very surprised with this news, afterall Trump defeated Hillary, fired John Bolton and filled the Whitehouse chock full of China Hawks. As far as retaliatory measures go he can just drone some more Shitte Milita or maybe down an Iranian Jet. Is this a concession towards Iran hawks to whip votes against impeachment?

The timing is fortuitous for Trump politically, because Pelosi has not transferred any articles of impeachment--making impeachment even more impotent as a political issue than it already is. Substantively, Iran rallied protesters to attack the US embassy in Baghdad and then bragged that Trump could do nothing about it. I'm sure Iranian leadership is quite shocked at the measured, mild, and simultaneously devastating response from Trump. There was no bombing of cities, indiscriminate killing, etc. It was a precise hit at a well-placed and well-deserved target.

Politics_Observer wrote:He has a duty to protect US citizens and the strike certainly puts the Iranians on notice not to attack our citizens.

I was in the 6th grade during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. I remember us kids having a mock demonstration saying, "We want the Ayatollah, we want the Ayatollah" as though we'd know what to do if we got him. Our school teachers were amused. Yet, Carter's effort to rescue hostages after the fact was a disaster and he never bolstered embassy defenses and it was only 4 years after the fall of Saigon. In Benghazi, Clinton had refused additional security and Obama evidently concurred as they were trying to buy arms from Al Qaeda affiliates to get arms to "moderate" Syrian forces with a "zero footprint" of American weapons. Ansar Al Sharia was able to overrun the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and kill the US ambassador. By contrast, Trump has shown that unlike Carter or Obama, he will respond with force. He was also very precise and measured in his attack. That's still a pretty soft touch, but effective.
#15057462
I am not very interested in the tit-for-tat dick measurement contests, but this could potentially shift a lot of focus away from China and leave us more bargaining chips. But then if Trump was forced to shift focus away from the trade war, this might not end well for him, as this is the core platform him and his henchmen run on.
2020 could be a very interesting year indeed.
Patrickov wrote:I suspect (or believe) that escalation is actually what Trump or his backers have always wanted.
I doubt it - his core doctrine has always been centering on trade and China - He wanted to back out of the Middle East, putting him in direct conflict with the neo-cons.
Seems the tides have shifted...
Last edited by benpenguin on 03 Jan 2020 08:19, edited 1 time in total.
#15057478
You are such a pussy colliric. I live in the ME and will be directly affected if something happens you are not. and I support this assasination because direct confrontation and sanctions is the way to deal with such threats no stupid deals like the nuclear deal that Obamba signed which was enriching this awful regime that have recently killed more than 1000 of its OWN people. only force will stop the Islamic republic
#15057479
We are technically in a state of peace. There's no war yet. Shouldn't support anyone getting killed, even the worst human being on the planet.

Look what happened when they, Obama and Hillary, offed Gaddafi and Bin Laden.... ISIS.
#15057480
What do you mean we are a state of peace? Israel and Iran certainly arent. dont forget that not so long ago Iran have attacked Saudi oil facilities and have been planning to attack more US and Saudi targets

solemani assassination was done with cooperation and approval of Iraqi intelligence. IR was planning a coup in Iraq to replace the whole government and put to power only pro Iranian politicians
#15057485
benpenguin wrote:Seems the tides have shifted...

Trump had to respond at some point, because Iran has been engaged in a wide array of proxy attacks. Trump's response is measured, but devastating at the same time. It's hard to find sympathy for any of the people killed in this attack from a geopolitical standpoint. We're not dealing with a bunch of collateral damage to civilians. For Iran, it's a symbolic loss as much as a tactical loss, and they will want to hit back. However, Trump is slowly escalating his responses. Iran has to be careful not to get the US population rallying around Trump too.

colliric wrote:I don't support escalation, which looks likely, but this was also a stupid move by Trump.

Why wasn't it a stupid move by Soleimani? After all, he paid with his life. When you consider shooting down of drones, the use of drones to hit Saudi oil fields, the capture of British tankers, the harassment of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the attack killing a US soldier, the attack on the embassy and taunting Trump that he could do nothing, it seems like a very measured response that will force Iran into a position of acting rashly and looking unbalanced.

colliric wrote:Look what happened when they, Obama and Hillary, offed Gaddafi and Bin Laden.... ISIS.

ISIS was practically their creation. ISIS didn't spawn from killing bin Laden, nor Qaddafi. On the contrary, their foreign policy was to overthrow the government of Syria by purchasing arms from Libyan rebels and transferring them to "moderate" forces in Syria. That's a big part of how ISIS grew.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:solemani assassination was done with cooperation and approval of Iraqi intelligence. IR was planning a coup in Iraq to replace the whole government and put to power only pro Iranian politicians

It is interesting to hear people spin this as a negative for Trump or for the region. Either Iran is allowed to continue its behavior, or it has to be confronted with force. This is a very small hit--smaller than the killing of the 25 militia members--yet, it has a very big impact. I think this is how Trump likes to get things done. While everyone will be looking forward, let's take a look back a Soleimani.

Last edited by blackjack21 on 03 Jan 2020 09:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15057489
Patrickov wrote:If everyone is going to die it doesn't matter, just make it quick and painless, thanks.


Iran can't wage WW3. It will be destroyed back to the stone age if it tries by the US.

Although if US will try to occupy Iran then it will not lead anywhere in a sense. Occupying Iran is not possible without WW2 level of mobilisation from the US. Even worse than Vietnam. At best, US can turn Iran in to a failed state but has no chance to dictate what policy Iran chooses since it has no way to really occupy and enforce the policy inside the country long term.
#15057490
JohnRawls wrote:Iran can't wage WW3. It will be destroyed back to the stone age if it tries by the US.


But what of China and Russia?

The only thing that matters now is what of response. If retaliation remain between Iran and the US this won't go anywhere. If Iran attack their neighbours and continue to do so, America will respond in Iranian territory and then it is a question on what China and Russia do.
#15057492
B0ycey wrote:
But what of China and Russia?

The only thing that matters now is what of response. If retaliation remain between Iran and the US this won't go anywhere. If Iran attack their neighbours and continue to do so, America will respond in Iranian territory and then it is a question on what China and Russia do.
Russia is more likely in this case since it is right at its door.

China less so, both because of the distance and China already has a lot of enemies both in and out. If the wave reaches China it is very unpredictable (I am not as foolish as to believe anti-China forces would win. At least I do not trust India and other Southeast Asian countries. Of course, if Russia plays smart and join the invasion then it is another story)
#15057493
Zionist Nationalist wrote:China and Russia wont do anything


I am not talking about currently. They are not forced to. Do you think China or Russia want America to destroy their influence in the ME? China has warn of escalation. And that is a fair response. Russia call this murder but aren't using war tones either.

Ultimately from previous responses Iran like tit for tat. They will go for a US diplomat. And if they do what then of America response? Currently the world isn't on their side as currently they are seen as the aggressor. Continue to do so and Russia and China if forced to chose sides will chose Iran. And then who is being sent to the stone age? If however Iran attack their neighbours and invade, then perhaps China especially might let the stupid dogs fight amongst themselves.
#15057494
Zionist Nationalist wrote:China and Russia wont do anything


Iran is threatening to "remove America from Iraq" and apparently has the support of its middle eastern allies.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... ve-updates
Americans living in Iraq have been told to evacuate ASAP anyway possible. They're either going to bomb Iraq, or invade. Either one is going to result in casualties.

May not be a World War, but it looks like another Gulf/Iraq War.
Last edited by colliric on 03 Jan 2020 11:17, edited 1 time in total.
#15057495
I saw this compared to Iran assassinating Donald Rumsfeld on a visit to Iraq. Both were highly polarising figures, who can be blamed for many deaths, but also organised war against generally hated regimes (Saddam for Rumsfeld, despite his support of him in the 80s, which would be why Iran would see him as a legitimate target; ISIS for Soleimani).

So the effect inside Iran will probably be what the equivalent would be in the USA - to unite most of the country behind the hard-liners. China and Russia will, of course, do something - they'll take advantage. They'll make it easy for Iran to sell its oil, and say that the USA is in the wrong, can't be trusted, buy your weapons from us to defend yourself against this rogue state etc. The current Iraqi government is furious, but is meant to be resigning. Either there's a complete uprising in Iraq which ends up being OK with the assassination, or the USA will have to get the fuck out of the country, if the replacement government is still pro-Iranian. Trump is hoping for an Iraqi revolution.
#15057496
B0ycey wrote:But what of China and Russia?

The only thing that matters now is what of response. If retaliation remain between Iran and the US this won't go anywhere. If Iran attack their neighbours and continue to do so, America will respond in Iranian territory and then it is a question on what China and Russia do.


All the bravado aside Russia and the US are 2 of the world most rational actors that don't deal in idealism or other fanatical nonsense. The last century has proven this. (Well if you exclude the ideology questions of communism and capitalism)

So US and Russia are not going to both commit suicide over Iran. China is isolationist and is the same boat as Iran. They will be destroyed to the stone age even with nukes. They are ofcourse more problematic because they have some nukes but nowhere close to the conventional or nuclear firepowers of the US. On top of that, China tries to avoid any land confrontation in the last 40 years so basically China will not do anything.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 40

Update. (Source: Hong Kong Standard ) Police[…]

I'm hopeful that we can begin to see Saudi Arabia[…]

I would rather have Mitt Romney up there. I'd ra[…]

Catholicism does not follow Jewish practices on t[…]