Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:29 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
When you have to use that many words to describe how we won, we really didn't win. Thanks.

Half of Korea went Communist. Not a victory.

Vietnam. Not a victory.

Cold War. Victory, but not by US military action.

Gulf War 1. Victory, but merely restored status quo and we ended up fighting the same guys again 11 years later.

Iraq War. Not a victory.

We can ground and pound, but when it comes to racking up actual W's, the US military has a reputation which vastly exceeds its battlefield accomplishments.
Your criteria seem a bit absurd- are we to believe that a "win" is only accomplished if we conquer and subjugate the enemy nation such that there's no insurgency or resistance, a-la post WW2 Germany? Would you call WWI a loss because we were fighting the same guys 20 years later?

In just about every case there, the military themselves fought well and either won by any reasonable metric (Korea, Gulf War 1, first part of Iraq War), or were put in positions that did not have clear or even present victory conditions. I mean, WHAT would have been a win in Vietnam? Or the second part of Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Is it the military's fault that the politicians put them in that situation? It's not like they can say no, when the President gives them orders.

It's like if you had a board game without a victory condition- how do you win, and how do you lose in a situation like that?
  #152  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:30 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
We can ground and pound, but when it comes to racking up actual W's, the US military has a reputation which vastly exceeds its battlefield accomplishments.
This may just be a poor choice of words, but it's still unfair; the reputation of the US military is wholly earned. The questionable results are all political matters.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #153  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:41 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It's like if you had a board game without a victory condition- how do you win, and how do you lose in a situation like that?
Um, the best move is not to play?
  #154  
Old 01-03-2020, 02:59 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Um, the best move is not to play?
Sure, but if the politicians make you play, it's not fair to then turn around and claim you lost because you didn't win.
  #155  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:12 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
We lost a lot of young american lives in the Iraq debacle. Do their families and friends feel like winners?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #156  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:19 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
I am listening to Trump saying the name "Sollamainee" over and over again. Is this the correct pronunciation?
  #157  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:19 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,334
Due to your age? Can't you just pretend to be older?
  #158  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:33 PM
jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 6,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Putin wants Belarus reintegrated with Russia, from December 24th:

https://apnews.com/0ef06c716e331bd4411441a8b4b63af7
Since Putin is facing term limits under Russian law, I find this bit interesting...

Russia + Crimea + Belarus = New Soviet Union
Quote:
Some in Belarus theorized that Putin could see a merger as a way to extend his rule by taking a new position of the head of the new unified state after his current term as Russian president ends in 2024.
  #159  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:35 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Due to your age? Can't you just pretend to be older?
Who is this in response to?
  #160  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:52 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I have been fired due to my age and will be out of here on Saint April Fool's Day. Any bets if things will hold off until then?
Dis guy.
  #161  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:55 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It's like if you had a board game without a victory condition- how do you win, and how do you lose in a situation like that?
That is known as an Infinite Game. You are winning if you are playing. You have lost if you are not. There are no other outcomes.
  #162  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:07 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,338
I have a legit question. Given that Qud is a well-organized, deeply entrenched organization, how would taking out Soleimani be a pre-emptive strike? Qud has already named his successor, and if the planned attacks against US military personnel, etc., were already in place, how would Soleimani's death pre-empt anything? I'm trying to understand the reasoning.
  #163  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:13 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I have a legit question. Given that Qud is a well-organized, deeply entrenched organization, how would taking out Soleimani be a pre-emptive strike? Qud has already named his successor, and if the planned attacks against US military personnel, etc., were already in place, how would Soleimani's death pre-empt anything? I'm trying to understand the reasoning.
This is exactly my question, too. Soleimani had already developed the infrastructure to commit these planned attacks at any time of Iran's choosing. How does taking out Soleimani prevent them occurring in any way? Seems to me that Iran has even more impetus to order attacks against Americans now than they had before, not less.
  #164  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
One possible explanation is that by taking out such a high profile target, the US is demonstrating that it not only has the power but the will to escalate, not just with sanctions but with military force. It also sends a message to the proxies as well: anyone's a target.

In the short run, yeah, it's a strategy that could indeed intimidate Iran and its proxies and make them think twice about further escalation. But in reality, Iran is just going to expedite work on its nuclear weapons program, reach out (and probably get) more political support from Russia and China, and they will bide their time and work out what to do next. Iran's character is not to let something like this go unanswered: they will fight back and there will be a further escalation. And depending on how desperate they feel their situation is, that escalation could be quite serious.
  #165  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:36 PM
Dark Sponge's Avatar
Dark Sponge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 20
I'm not sure this was a mistake. Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. When a guy like that is in control of one of the most powerful military forces you don't want to piss him off.

I suspect Iran will threaten and posture but won't retaliate in any significant way.
  #166  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:49 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
I'm not sure this was a mistake. Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. When a guy like that is in control of one of the most powerful military forces you don't want to piss him off.

I suspect Iran will threaten and posture but won't retaliate in any significant way.
If this were true, we'd have been blowing up airports and assassinating brown guys since Jan. 2017 to make sure the whole world knew we were not to be fucked with, right? But we haven't been. Why is that?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #167  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
I have a legit question. Given that Qud is a well-organized, deeply entrenched organization, how would taking out Soleimani be a pre-emptive strike? Qud has already named his successor, and if the planned attacks against US military personnel, etc., were already in place, how would Soleimani's death pre-empt anything? I'm trying to understand the reasoning.
It doesn't. Or at least, there's no reason we should take the word of a wholly dishonest administration about the reason for the strike. They've lied again and again; chances are they're lying now.
  #168  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:58 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It's like if you had a board game without a victory condition- how do you win, and how do you lose in a situation like that?
War isn't about the narrow question of which military can beat the other military. It's about achieving foreign policy goals. If we send the military on a campaign and they win every military engagement, yet we didn't achieve our foreign policy, then WE lost the war. Not just the military, the entire United States.

In Germany and Japan our goal was to completely pacify those nations. They now remain pacified because we did the work of rebuilding and partnering and forging alliances. But the United States lost Vietnam, we lost Iraq, we lost Afghanistan. It's pointless to salve our ego by saying we threw better punches or had better form. All our foreign policy goals failed in those countries, or they led to other catastrophic unforeseen policy outcomes, so we simply lost. The criteria are perfectly clear.

We lost because, in the run-up to war, we base our chances of success purely on the likelihood of destroying the other country's military. Things will surely go our way once they have no tanks or airplanes! But it never goes that way. We're doing it again, right now, here in this thread.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 01-03-2020 at 06:00 PM.
  #169  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:08 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
I'm not sure this was a mistake. Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. When a guy like that is in control of one of the most powerful military forces you don't want to piss him off.

I suspect Iran will threaten and posture but won't retaliate in any significant way.
Trump is perceived in the world as a coward who will do anything to save his own skin. This is the absolute only way he's been 100% predictable.

Everyone also knows he's terrified of the price of oil going up, that he's terrified of high interest rates, that he's terrified of incurring US casualties in war, that he's terrified of having his misdeeds exposed. When confronted with strength, he always makes blustering threats and backs down. There's nothing unpredictable about him except how he responds when faced with several things that terrify him about the same amount.

This calculation isn't going to work forever, but there's no reason Iran shouldn't expect it to continue working for them. They know they can't win a war against the US, but they can inflict enough pain to make the US lose.
  #170  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:35 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
War isn't about the narrow question of which military can beat the other military. It's about achieving foreign policy goals. If we send the military on a campaign and they win every military engagement, yet we didn't achieve our foreign policy, then WE lost the war. Not just the military, the entire United States.

In Germany and Japan our goal was to completely pacify those nations. They now remain pacified because we did the work of rebuilding and partnering and forging alliances. But the United States lost Vietnam, we lost Iraq, we lost Afghanistan. It's pointless to salve our ego by saying we threw better punches or had better form. All our foreign policy goals failed in those countries, or they led to other catastrophic unforeseen policy outcomes, so we simply lost. The criteria are perfectly clear.
Well, then, maybe we need better goals: how about, instead of leading off with talk about how we’re out “to completely pacify”, we helpfully declare at the start that we’re looking to smash their military and then, y’know, call it a day?

Quote:
We lost because, in the run-up to war, we base our chances of success purely on the likelihood of destroying the other country's military. Things will surely go our way once they have no tanks or airplanes! But it never goes that way.
That’s what I’m asking: can we say, in advance, that once their stuff gets smashed, that’ll be the indicator that things sure went our way?
  #171  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:49 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,091
Sure, for future conflicts, but you can't use that as a post hoc rationale for "winning" Korea, Vietnam, etc as merely breaking things wasn't the stated policy goals.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-03-2020 at 06:49 PM.
  #172  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:50 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
... Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. ...
As evidenced by gatherings of world leaders that include the Donald, he's the subject of ridicule.
  #173  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:52 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
That is known as an Infinite Game. You are winning if you are playing. You have lost if you are not.
Speaking of, y'all have lost The Game. Again.
  #174  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:55 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
War isn't about the narrow question of which military can beat the other military. It's about achieving foreign policy goals. If we send the military on a campaign and they win every military engagement, yet we didn't achieve our foreign policy, then WE lost the war. Not just the military, the entire United States.

In Germany and Japan our goal was to completely pacify those nations. They now remain pacified because we did the work of rebuilding and partnering and forging alliances. But the United States lost Vietnam, we lost Iraq, we lost Afghanistan. It's pointless to salve our ego by saying we threw better punches or had better form. All our foreign policy goals failed in those countries, or they led to other catastrophic unforeseen policy outcomes, so we simply lost. The criteria are perfectly clear.

We lost because, in the run-up to war, we base our chances of success purely on the likelihood of destroying the other country's military. Things will surely go our way once they have no tanks or airplanes! But it never goes that way. We're doing it again, right now, here in this thread.

I don't see any "goals" at all.
  #175  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:57 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,091
So much war-stopping and de-escalation happening tonight:

https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/sta...992424961?s=19

Quote:
Iraqi security official tells @nbcnews there has been anther US airstrike, this one north of Baghdad targeting Shiite militia leaders. Reports of 6 killed.
This right BEFORE a big Shiite protest tomorrow in Baghdad. It seems certain to provoke an escalation.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-03-2020 at 06:58 PM.
  #176  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:26 PM
margin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The Iraq/Iran relationship is not as simple as 'Allies'. There are large factions in Iraq that absolutely want the Iranian influence ended and Iran militias booted out of the country. Other factions are closely tied to Iran and welcome them.

How this plays put probably depends on Iraqi internal politics.
During Saddam Hussein's tenure, he closed the border to Iranians, who have a yearly ritual which requires pilgrimage to Najaf and, I believe, Karbala. Iranians tend to be Shi'a; Hussein was Sunni.
  #177  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
Have there been any accusations that the impeachment process is an unnecessary diversion from this escalation of hostilities yet?
  #178  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:32 PM
alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Killing Suleiman, accident or not, is an adequate retaliation for their attack on our Embassy. Let them think twice about unprovoked acts of aggression against us or our Allies. The Iranian government is not a popular one and some USA carrot and stick might pay off.
This is only going to make the Iranian regime more popular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasg View Post
Since Putin is facing term limits under Russian law, I find this bit interesting...

Russia + Crimea + Belarus = New Soviet Union
Or he could just swap places with Dimitry Medvedev for a term and rule the country from the Prime Minister's office.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #179  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:37 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,649
It is so strange, disconcerting actually, that I find myself rooting for Iran in all this.

As weird as it makes me feel, and as irrational as I know it is, I suspect I'm not the only one having such a nauseating epiphany.

One more reason Trump sickens me.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 01-03-2020 at 07:38 PM.
  #180  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
For all of the speculation about the myriad ways in which Iran might retaliate, it seems the most obvious and easiest thing for Iran's government to do for the moment is to destabilize Iraq and turn people against the US-leaning government. It would put pressure on Iraq's government to step back from US support, and things get out of control, it would endanger the security for the 5000-6000 US troops still there, which could force the US out once and for all.
  #181  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:44 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Have there been any accusations that the impeachment process is an unnecessary diversion from this escalation of hostilities yet?
I'm not convinced Trump wants a war or has ever really wanted one. I think the SOB is ignorant enough to believe that a surgical strike here and there and pressure can make the Iranian regime fold.

As I've said before with Iran, as I have with NK, the danger is miscalculation based on ignorance, assumptions, and not giving anyone - domestically or internationally, ally or foe - what the end game is. Trump is making critically important decisions based on whatever he instinctively feels is good input, and who knows where the hell that input comes from -- it could be coming from Infowars for all we know.
  #182  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:51 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm not convinced Trump wants a war or has ever really wanted one. I think the SOB is ignorant enough to believe that a surgical strike here and there and pressure can make the Iranian regime fold.

As I've said before with Iran, as I have with NK, the danger is miscalculation based on ignorance, assumptions, and not giving anyone - domestically or internationally, ally or foe - what the end game is. Trump is making critically important decisions based on whatever he instinctively feels is good input, and who knows where the hell that input comes from -- it could be coming from Infowars for all we know.
That's not what I am asking. I am asking if anyone on the right side of the aisle is trying to pull the "This "impeachment" crap should be set aside until we deal with this real problem-The President has important things to deal with right now and your silly trial is a dangerous diversion!" angle.
  #183  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:58 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12,404
Interesting hashtag.
  #184  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:02 PM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
I'm not sure this was a mistake. Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. When a guy like that is in control of one of the most powerful military forces you don't want to piss him off.

I suspect Iran will threaten and posture but won't retaliate in any significant way.
Right, it will be just like when Reagan bombed Libya after Qadaffi blew up the airliner over Lockerbie. Killed Qadaffi's daughter. Libya got the message and didn't fuck with us after that.

Except that didn't happen. Many people remember it that way, even lifelong Democrats (and probably 90% of Republicans). But the fact is that Qadaffi blew up the airliner two years AFTER the air strike that killed his daughter.
  #185  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
That's not what I am asking. I am asking if anyone on the right side of the aisle is trying to pull the "This "impeachment" crap should be set aside until we deal with this real problem-The President has important things to deal with right now and your silly trial is a dangerous diversion!" angle.
That's certainly possible, but it wouldn't matter one way or the other what Republicans do to thwart off impeachment. What really matters is the blow back from Trump's decisions, as that, more than Democrats' vain attempts to impeach him on anything he's done so far, is something that could turn more voters against him. It could be that if this unfolds into a disaster, support for impeachment could go way, way up.
  #186  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:35 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 507
I read somewhere, can't find it now, that the US did not know Soleimani was at the airport and we were going after lower level targets. It was intended to be a one time strike as a show of force and that would be the end. Now it that were true, the question is now moot as Trump has said we were targeting Soleimani, and of course a mistake cannot be admitted.

This makes sense to me, I do not believe Trump wants a war because a war is not going to help him get re-elected. Well, probably not. Who knows how the public will react if this escalates. Many will buy Pence's bullshit.

Question about the statement that Iran and Soleimani were planning major attacks against America? Any credibility to that? Why would Iran do that? What would be the objective?
  #187  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:49 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Iran is a second rate at best power. Probably more like third rate when you get right down to it. They are not a serious threat.
They are a serious threat to kill and maim a significant number of U.S. and Allied forces if we foolishly choose to invade for... reasons.
  #188  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:16 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
I read somewhere, can't find it now, that the US did not know Soleimani was at the airport and we were going after lower level targets. It was intended to be a one time strike as a show of force and that would be the end. Now it that were true, the question is now moot as Trump has said we were targeting Soleimani, and of course a mistake cannot be admitted.
It seems terribly unlikely that we would attack a public airport in the capital of a friendly just to get some flunkies.
  #189  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:28 PM
Mike Mabes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
It seems terribly unlikely that we would attack a public airport in the capital of a friendly just to get some flunkies.
The story I saw, and I just quickly skimmed it at work, didn't say flunkies, but "legitimate" military targets. The question is really moot, I searched and can't find the story anywhere now.
  #190  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:53 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Would somebody kindly break down for me how panicked I should be on a scale of 1–10? I sort of feel like this is a 4, but that may be just because there's been rather a lot of inflation during the Trump era and I'm getting inured to the news. I know next to nothing about US-Iran issues, or Persian politics, other than that there has been tension for a while, and I don't feel I can calibrate this.
It would be a zero on your scale. People like to extend Irans capabilities, but frankly if they could have hit the US, they would have done so by now. Right now their first order of business is to get their president/grand poohbah/what ever, into their most deepest bunker.

After that worthy is assured that his personal safety is not in doubt, they get down to business and decide what they lost and what they can do about it. The one guy that might have been able to craft a solution, has now been returned to his constituent atoms and is now dust in the wind.

So Iran is now going to be a little bitch, and go turtle and cry for mommy.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #191  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:00 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Well, then, maybe we need better goals: how about, instead of leading off with talk about how we’re out “to completely pacify”, we helpfully declare at the start that we’re looking to smash their military and then, y’know, call it a day?
Are we now pretending that this whole crisis didn't start with the goal of stopping Iran from being an international sponsor of state terrorism? That's just going to keep right on rolling while we pat ourselves on the back for sinking their navy? Congratulations, we just got played again Vietnam-style.

Honestly I am never going to get why people are so intent on proving the US wins military victories while getting curb-stomped in terms of geopolitical objectives. It's such a tragic and murderous sucker's game.
  #192  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:03 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
Question about the statement that Iran and Soleimani were planning major attacks against America? Any credibility to that? Why would Iran do that? What would be the objective?
I'm sure Soleimani spent most of the past 20 years planning some sort of attack on the US, but I doubt this situation was any more than "Iraqi Yellowcake 2.0".

Most likely Trump turned on Fox News, didn't want to look bad, asked his generals to drone somebody to make him look good, and inadvertently stepped into a world of shit when they bagged bigger game than anyone was expecting.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 01-03-2020 at 10:04 PM.
  #193  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:10 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 42,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Sponge View Post
I'm not sure this was a mistake. Trump is perceived by the world as erratic and capable of almost anything. When a guy like that is in control of one of the most powerful military forces you don't want to piss him off.
I gotta throw in with HMS Irruncible here; this is really NOT how he's seen outside the USA. He is weak and predictable, and incapable of standing up to real strength.

His bluster doesn't make him look strong or erratic at all.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #194  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:15 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
It would be a zero on your scale. People like to extend Irans capabilities, but frankly if they could have hit the US, they would have done so by now. Right now their first order of business is to get their president/grand poohbah/what ever, into their most deepest bunker.

After that worthy is assured that his personal safety is not in doubt, they get down to business and decide what they lost and what they can do about it. The one guy that might have been able to craft a solution, has now been returned to his constituent atoms and is now dust in the wind.

So Iran is now going to be a little bitch, and go turtle and cry for mommy.
This is absolutely one of the most compelling posts in the thread.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 01-03-2020 at 10:16 PM.
  #195  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:17 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
1. I read somewhere, can't find it now, that the US did not know Soleimani was at the airport and we were going after lower level targets. It was intended to be a one time strike as a show of force and that would be the end. Now it that were true, the question is now moot as Trump has said we were targeting Soleimani, and of course a mistake cannot be admitted.

2. This makes sense to me, I do not believe Trump wants a war because a war is not going to help him get re-elected. Well, probably not.

3. Question about the statement that Iran and Soleimani were planning major attacks against America? Any credibility to that? Why would Iran do that? What would be the objective?
1. That's possible. I certainly hope anyway there aren't details leaked about what the US knew that point to how it was known. Also though it's possible that despite Soleimani's higher profile in recent years (at one time he was a pretty shadowy figure, not as much last 5 yrs or so, lots more picture/video of him) the US didn't know any time recently exactly where he'd be at a given exact time without attacking him on Iranian soil (more provocative still), or somewhere the US has less ability to strike (not as easy in Russian occupied areas of Syria for example). So an opportunity to hit him in relatively easy to access Iraq came up and it wasn't all to to do with recent or near future activities.

2. Trump can be accused of lots of things but *wanting* another foreign war is not a reasonable criticism of him it doesn't seem to me. However wars start by miscalculation all the time.

3. I'm pretty sure they meant attacks on US personnel in Iraq and perhaps the Middle East generally, not attacks on the continental US. The US and Iran have been fighting an undeclared war for years/decades, 100's of US service people's deaths in Iraq were related to Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp activities, and a US contractor was killed in an Iranian affiliated militia attack on a US base in Iraq just days ago. The objective was and is to get the US out of Iraq and ultimately the Mideast. IOW it's been a fairly normal state of affairs for Soleimani as commander of the IRGC to be planning attacks on US interests in the Mideast, and it's considered 'major' whenever those attacks results in US deaths. We can debate if that 'justifies' killing the IRGC commander or whether it's wise if 'justified', but I don't think there's a fundamental credibility issue with claiming Soleimani was in Iraq at least in part to aid and coordinate, with proxies, attacks on US interests or facilities there.

Last edited by Corry El; 01-03-2020 at 10:21 PM.
  #196  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:21 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Oh come off it. The merits of the decision (or mistake) may have been foolish, but he was a senior officer of an adversary inside an active war zone and hence a perfectly legitimate target under any rule of war you can think off.
Under most rules of war *I* can think of, bumping someone off while in a state of peace is called "murder". And since when is Iran an adversary ? Or Iraq a fucking active war zone ? Against whom ?
  #197  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:48 PM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,338
Why is retaliation by Iran the only concern? Whatever Iran's official retaliation may be, should I or should I not be concerned that Hamas and Hezbollah have both called for revenge? ( read the Assad regime has done so, too, but haven't confirmed it yet.)Is it unrealistic to think Iran will retaliate in some form soon, and the terrorist response, which would likely take greater coordination, would happen down the road a little way?
  #198  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:52 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
It would be a zero on your scale. People like to extend Irans capabilities, but frankly if they could have hit the US, they would have done so by now. Right now their first order of business is to get their president/grand poohbah/what ever, into their most deepest bunker.

After that worthy is assured that his personal safety is not in doubt, they get down to business and decide what they lost and what they can do about it. The one guy that might have been able to craft a solution, has now been returned to his constituent atoms and is now dust in the wind.

So Iran is now going to be a little bitch, and go turtle and cry for mommy.
Would you care to take a bet on whether you are right?
  #199  
Old 01-03-2020, 11:09 PM
DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Mabes View Post
I read somewhere, can't find it now, that the US did not know Soleimani was at the airport and we were going after lower level targets. It was intended to be a one time strike as a show of force and that would be the end. Now it that were true, the question is now moot as Trump has said we were targeting Soleimani, and of course a mistake cannot be admitted.

This makes sense to me, I do not believe Trump wants a war because a war is not going to help him get re-elected. Well, probably not. Who knows how the public will react if this escalates. Many will buy Pence's bullshit.

Question about the statement that Iran and Soleimani were planning major attacks against America? Any credibility to that? Why would Iran do that? What would be the objective?
I hope you can find the source for this because I have heard that too (on this board courtesy of another poster) and I think it adds the perfect element of comedy to this tragedy. Only Trump could fuck it up like this, trying to hit some foot soldiers and accidentally glassing a senior general from next door. And since Trump isn't capable of admitting fault as you noted, he's going to clusterfuck his way into an actual war.
  #200  
Old 01-03-2020, 11:09 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,097
No explosions overnight. No smoke from the refinery this morning. So far so good.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017