Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

So when this guy would have carried out his next attack against Americans, and killed a bunch of our people, Trump would have been blamed for failing to protect Americans, most likely led by the voices of Schumer and Pelosi.

Yeah you can always bring up these scenarios as justification. That's how we got the dumbass Iraq war. This was done so he could impress the Mar-a-lago clientele and to buy Bolton's silence.

[lineygoblue]

Yeah you can always bring up these scenarios as justification. That's how we got the dumbass Iraq war. This was done so he could impress the Mar-a-lago clientele and to buy Bolton's silence.

Oh, okay. I'm glad we got that straightened out.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rukmini Callimachi reports on ISIS and Al Qaeda for the Times and posted a lengthy thread on Twitter on what she's heard from two people that have been briefed by the Administration. Take it for what it's worth. This could be closer to the truth than what we know or it could not. Too long to post it all but I'll try to summarize

The evidence they were shown for an imminent attack is "razor thin". There was actually nothing specific known we came to this conclusion based on 3 things:

a) Suleimani was traveling around the region visiting his various proxies. The Admin says this is a clue something was up but her sources add that this was nothing new or out of the ordinary for Suleimani

b) Suleimani had requested the Supreme Leader's approval for an operation of some kind and was supposed to head back to Tehran to consult directly. No specifics known.

c) These two things were considered in the current context of Iran amping up its attacks on us

* Also to note, it was actually the attack on the Embassy, not the death of the contractor, that got Trump to choose killing Suleimani. Up till then we were going to bomb a militia. Killing Suleimani was actually a VERY hastily put together operation

* We've intercepted chatter from Iran that indicates they are discussing a wide range of responses but the scariest is that they are at least considering the kidnapping, "trial", and execution of US citizens in the Middle East. That's why the evacuate now notices went out.

* If this goes on for a while our operations against ISIS will come to a complete halt. Almost all that work is being done from extreme outposts and we can't protect our special forces way out in the field when Embassies and even military bases are under immediate threat.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Good take .......

From the outset, the Islamic republic rejected Trump's abandonment of the nuclear deal and the imposition of sanctions as unacceptable bullying, and refused to sit by idly while US sanctions blocked the country's vital oil exports, crippled its economy and bankrupted its military.

Tehran expanded its proxy attacks on US assets and allies in the area, including recent attacks on tankers in the Gulf and Saudi oil installations, leading up to this week's attack on US positions in Iraq.

Tehran has also cultivated new strategic alliances with Russia and China, joining the two for war games in the Gulf of Oman in late December.

The assassination is not going to change any of these policies; in fact, it will merely accelerate them.

If history is any guide, Iran will absorb the attack at first and avoid an all-out war with far superior US military forces. Trump may have challenged Khamenei for a duel, but the supreme leader prefers fighting in the shadows.

So, respond, he will. His options are plentiful and his timetable is open-ended. This includes assassinations, covert operations, low-intensity warfare and oil and maritime disruptions in the Gulf region.

In other words, more of the same - much more.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/iran-fallout-soleimani-assassination-200104091122122.html

[Jeff Buchanan]

Here's my take which is closely aligned with the article from Aljazerra re US withdrawal from the ME as US strategic interests pivot out of that region.

There were probably two American goals in the assassination:

(1) An attack on US soil, i.e., our embassy in Iraq, is going to illicit a sharp response. We know where you are; we can find and assassinate your leadership that orders such attacks. Lots of messaging here beyond that one clear message.

(2) The Aljazeera writer opines that the Trump administration seeks strategic withdrawal from the ME at least militarily that commitment having the largest and most vulnerable footprint. I agree with that view.

I think we will see a gradual draw down of boots on the ground after the relatively small contingent of newly assigned military forces being sent to the ME secure vital installations from a ground assault by Iranian proxies. Frankly, the US would like, maybe even encourage such an assault, said assault to then be crushed by US forces with far superior conventional war-fighting capabilities than anything Iran can provide to its proxies.

And if you're thinking about this, despite new found alliances being formed by Iran with China and Russia, opinion on the probability that either of these countries becoming entangled militarily over this are low for a number of reasons not the least of which is neither of them want the global disruption that any kind of large scale involvement would produce. I actually think the "friendship" between Putin and Trump that Jon so abhors may be a positive factor as the aftermath of the assassination unfolds.

I also agree with the Aljazeera author in that Iran will continue to fuck with the US in the maritime portion of the gulf region and probably inside SA, maybe the Gulf States that support US basing rights and the US will respond appropriately. Their reach beyond that sort of thing is limited so, we'll continue to see low level "attacks" and "counter-attacks" that have characterized the simmering US/Iranian conflict for decades. I don't think we'll see WWIII or anything close to it. Tensions will continue and flare-up on occasions but the big-one? No.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Pentagon tries to avoid disclosing the number of troops in active theaters as much as possible but like I said earlier this week, we are believed to have 5,000-6,000 troops inside Iraq. The next biggest concentration of our guys is far and away Qatar, where they could be 10,000 stationed and then Bahrain where there's another 5,000. Those bases are home to our regional headquarters for the Air Force and Navy respectively.

What would make me a bit nervous is that Saudi refinery Iran attacked is practically right next to both bases.

[WingsFan]

Is Obama attending Soleimani's funeral? Asking for a friend

[iam416]

[lineygoblue]

Is Obama attending Soleimani's funeral? Asking for a friend

It was yesterday, and I'm sure Michelle and Barry Otero were disappointed that they didn't get the invitation in time to be there.

Imagine how neat it would have been to see their Secret Service detail protecting them as they marched with the faithful thru the streets of Teheran.

[Dr. Strangelove]

haha Barry Obama hates America! He roots for the terrorists!! As do all Democrats!! haha. I bet he was born in Uganda or even worse Africa!!!

[lineygoblue]

I don't care if he was born in Pago Pago. I'm just glad the Constitution finally ended his term.

[froot loops]

Here's my take which is closely aligned with the article from Aljazerra re US withdrawal from the ME as US strategic interests pivot out of that region.

There were probably two American goals in the assassination:

(1) An attack on US soil, i.e., our embassy in Iraq, is going to illicit a sharp response. We know where you are; we can find and assassinate your leadership that orders such attacks. Lots of messaging here beyond that one clear message.

(2) The Aljazeera writer opines that the Trump administration seeks strategic withdrawal from the ME at least militarily that commitment having the largest and most vulnerable footprint. I agree with that view.

I think we will see a gradual draw down of boots on the ground after the relatively small contingent of newly assigned military forces being sent to the ME secure vital installations from a ground assault by Iranian proxies. Frankly, the US would like, maybe even encourage such an assault, said assault to then be crushed by US forces with far superior conventional war-fighting capabilities than anything Iran can provide to its proxies.

And if you're thinking about this, despite new found alliances being formed by Iran with China and Russia, opinion on the probability that either of these countries becoming entangled militarily over this are low for a number of reasons not the least of which is neither of them want the global disruption that any kind of large scale involvement would produce. I actually think the "friendship" between Putin and Trump that Jon so abhors may be a positive factor as the aftermath of the assassination unfolds.

I also agree with the Aljazeera author in that Iran will continue to fuck with the US in the maritime portion of the gulf region and probably inside SA, maybe the Gulf States that support US basing rights and the US will respond appropriately. Their reach beyond that sort of thing is limited so, we'll continue to see low level "attacks" and "counter-attacks" that have characterized the simmering US/Iranian conflict for decades. I don't think we'll see WWIII or anything close to it. Tensions will continue and flare-up on occasions but the big-one? No.

Jeff - I admire your dogged determination to find sound rational logic for a total shitshow administration, but you look like Charlie Brown with the football.

ENesTuTW4AEmvfO.jpg

ENesTvIU8AArf85.jpg

[Jeff Buchanan]

Shruggs ......

I've supported a hard line policy against Iran since the virulently anti-American Islamists took over the country in 1979. I really don't care, in this case, who formulated or ordered the assassination of Suleimani. IMO, it sends the right signal to the Mullahs as I described it above.

[iam416]

haha Barry Obama hates America! He roots for the terrorists!! As do all Democrats!! haha. I bet he was born in Uganda or even worse Africa!!!

There's considerably more truth in this than DSL wants to admit. Now, ol' Barry is a relative moderate these days, so I'm sure he still supports the US over Iran. But, an uncomfortably large number of Ds are siding with Iran on this. And they're led by on of their thought leaders, icons and heroes -- one of Froot's own personal heroes -- Colin Kaepernick:

There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism. America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world.

That line of thinking is entirely too prevalent amongst today's Ds. It's a world of juding every action by race. Nevermind that Suleimani has killed countless "brown" people.

Ds are going to see this as some sort of act to avoid impeachment talk. And they'll side with Iran.

[iam416]

I really don't care, in this case, who formulated or ordered the assassination of Suleimani. IMO, it sends the right signal to the Mullahs as I described it above.

Goddman right. You wanna foment and lead an attack on the US embassy? Welp -- you're gonna pay the piper.

Frankly, I think PDJT's response is incredibly measured. One strike. Against a responsible party and, in the eyes of Non-Ds, a terrible person. U-S motherfucking A.