Iran: What next?

[RiverDog]

https://apnews.com/5a168a5d8f560e928f3924f7af10f1d8 Esper admits he never heard of any embassy bombings

The hits just keep a comin. And so much for the lies about an imminent threat (to 4 embassies).

Doesn't surprise me at all. Trump does not go through a rational thought process, weighing the pros and cons of different options. He does things by gut feel, by the seat of his pants. It's one of my biggest complaints about him, ie his chaotic management style, and it's apparent in more than just foreign policy decisions. And, of course, it also doesn't surprise me that he's apparently lied about the so-called imminent threat.

Meanwhile Rocket Man does as he pleases and gets love letters. It just demonstrates the utter chaos of the foreign policy of this administration. Fortunately the American people aren't buying it with 53% opposed to Trump's handling of Iran, only 25% think we are safer with 25% unsure. Even 53% of republicans feel we are less safe with Trump's handling of this.
I cant see this helping at the polls.

I agree with everything except for your remark about the polls. His RCP disapproval average stands at 52.9%, a full two points lower than his high water mark of the post Ukrainian scandal high of 55.0% back in late October. The gap between approval/disapproval has actually shrunk by a couple points since October. None of this is going to make any difference in the broader scheme of things. I think you're being affected by more wishful thinking again.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

[I-5]

First of all, the White House press corps, although not as unbalanced as it used to be 40 or 50 years ago, is still a pretty liberally biased group as a whole. Just guessing, but it seems to me that Republican presidents in general have held fewer press conferences than their Democratic counterparts due mainly to this reason. It's the same reason why many Dems have openly refused to appear on Fox News.

Secondly, social media gives the WH the ability to get their message out without having to go through a media filter. This option has never existed before, and when combined with the former, causes this administration to feel that they don't need the media to get their views out. Plus the subject matter is no longer timely. By the time they get around to holding a press conference, the issues are old news and debates both pro and con have widely circulated.

Thirdly, this POTUS contradicts himself so much and puts out so much blatantly false information that no press secretary in their right mind would want to go out there and defend or explain his remarks/tweets. They do not want to field questions from people they view as the enemy. They've already spoken to the people they care about, ie their political base, so screw the press, or at least that's what they're thinking.

To me, this attitude is the ultimate example of a true 'snowflake'. She only wants to face journalists who she knows will ask you softball questions. Who pays her salary anyway?

Edit: of the 3 explanations you suggested, I think number 3 is the truest one by far. For the first two 'reasons', that wouldn't cut it with any other administration, dem or repub. Both Clinton and Obama regularly engaged with Faux News, often directly.

[RiverDog]

First of all, the White House press corps, although not as unbalanced as it used to be 40 or 50 years ago, is still a pretty liberally biased group as a whole. Just guessing, but it seems to me that Republican presidents in general have held fewer press conferences than their Democratic counterparts due mainly to this reason. It's the same reason why many Dems have openly refused to appear on Fox News.

Secondly, social media gives the WH the ability to get their message out without having to go through a media filter. This option has never existed before, and when combined with the former, causes this administration to feel that they don't need the media to get their views out. Plus the subject matter is no longer timely. By the time they get around to holding a press conference, the issues are old news and debates both pro and con have widely circulated.

Thirdly, this POTUS contradicts himself so much and puts out so much blatantly false information that no press secretary in their right mind would want to go out there and defend or explain his remarks/tweets. They do not want to field questions from people they view as the enemy. They've already spoken to the people they care about, ie their political base, so screw the press, or at least that's what they're thinking.

To me, this attitude is the ultimate example of a true 'snowflake'. She only wants to face journalists who she knows will ask you softball questions. Who pays her salary anyway?

Edit: of the 3 explanations you suggested, I think number 3 is the truest one by far. For the first two 'reasons', that wouldn't cut it with any other administration, dem or repub. Both Clinton and Obama regularly engaged with Faux News, often directly.

Although I think you're right in that #3 is weighted heavier than the other 2 reasons I gave, I do think that they all factor in. Although I don't have any evidence to back it up, my sense is that every Republican administration since Eisenhower holds fewer press conferences than Democratic Presidents going back to Kennedy.

The Dems I was referring to as refusing to appear on Fox wasn't Clinton and Obama, and I probably should have worded it differently by saying appear in front of Fox vs. on Fox. I was thinking of the DNC's decision to bar Fox from moderating any of their debates. It's every bit as much of a "true snowflake" attitude looking for softball questions to hit out of the park as what you eluded to in your first sentence.

[I-5]

The Dems I was referring to as refusing to appear on Fox wasn't Clinton and Obama, and I probably should have worded it differently by saying appear in front of Fox vs. on Fox. I was thinking of the DNC's decision to bar Fox from moderating any of their debates. It's every bit as much of a "true snowflake" attitude looking for softball questions to hit out of the park as what you eluded to in your first sentence.

I totally agree. The DNC should make an example of inclusivity by allowing Fox News to moderate a debate. Plus, free airtime to Fox viewers. It was a missed opportunity for them, so I hope they've learned from it this time.

[RiverDog]

I totally agree. The DNC should make an example of inclusivity by allowing Fox News to moderate a debate. Plus, free airtime to Fox viewers. It was a missed opportunity for them, so I hope they've learned from it this time.

All of what you say is true, and I'll add that the DNC's exclusion of Fox News from their debates is emblematic of an attitude held by both political parties and their followers, insisting on dividing us by ideology and refusing to hear the other's POV.

You're right about the free air time on Fox News. FNC has a huge audience, and it's not comprised of exclusively ultra conservatives. A lot of people have to watch it not by their own choice but because it's what happens to be on in a break room, gym, etc. It's emblematic of a narrow minded attitude from both political parties and their followers, refusing to hear other points of view.

[Aseahawkfan]

Another addition to the mix as far as how I see it.

After reading more and this was already my presumption, Trump did what he did because he did not want to have a Benghazi on his hands and look weak like Obama and Hilary did after Benghazi. When our embassy was attacked by Iranian backed militias, he sent a strong message to Iran of "Don't think of me like you do Obama or Hilary, I won't show weak like they did." I know the media is painting Trump as reacting without thinking, but I don't buy their BS narrative. Trump is reacting based on his considerations of Benghazi and wanting to appear tougher than the previous administration on dealing with an attack on American embassies.

I also talked to my Iraqi and Afghan buddies. The Iraqi Sunni guy says Iraqi Sunni are happy Trump hit this Iranian general. He said the guy is a known instigator and has been working destabilizing and polarizing the Iraqi government on behalf of Iran. The Afghan guy said this is one of the first things Trump has done that Afghans celebrated. Apparently this Iranian general was recruiting Afghans to serve in militias to attack Iraq. Apparently Afghan as a poor country is a site for recruitment of soldiers and Iran is recruiting poor Afghans to fight in foreign territory for Shia militias. They are also backing Shia militias in Afghan to control certain regions in Afghanistan. Since Afghanistan is mostly Sunni, they are unlikely to gain power in Afghanistan, but do continue to interfere in Afghan politics and fund Shia militia activity.

Video from am Iranian who immigrated to America explaining some of the history of the US-Iranian conflict. His parents fled during the Iranian Revolution when the Shah was driven out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_htudbaqsk

[I-5]

I don't think anyone is unhappy that he's dead. It's the way Trump did it, and what has happened since then to destabilize the region even more. Most Americans feel this has been handled badly, and the VP, AG, and SOS are making it worse trying to dig out of the mess without contradicting Trump (a thankless task).That is not really debateable, but I don't think that would deter you.

[RiverDog]

I also talked to my Iraqi and Afghan buddies. The Iraqi Sunni guy says Iraqi Sunni are happy Trump hit this Iranian general. He said the guy is a known instigator and has been working destabilizing and polarizing the Iraqi government on behalf of Iran. The Afghan guy said this is one of the first things Trump has done that Afghans celebrated. Apparently this Iranian general was recruiting Afghans to serve in militias to attack Iraq. Apparently Afghan as a poor country is a site for recruitment of soldiers and Iran is recruiting poor Afghans to fight in foreign territory for Shia militias. They are also backing Shia militias in Afghan to control certain regions in Afghanistan. Since Afghanistan is mostly Sunni, they are unlikely to gain power in Afghanistan, but do continue to interfere in Afghan politics and fund Shia militia activity.

Here's a copy and paste from a friend of mine's Facebook post. He's an Iraqi born immigrant with whom I worked with, served as one of his mentors, and developed a close friendship with. I've referenced him before in our musings. Now that I'm retired, I don't get a chance to see him much and when I do, it's in a social setting that's not a good place for talking politics, so I haven't had an opportunity to talk with him about his comments, but I thought them worth sharing:

I’m not a big talker about politics and doing my best avoiding arguing about it.

Trump ordered the killings of two very powerful leaders that fought and defeated terror in the Middle East and specially in Iraq .
The big question is why did he do that inside Iraq and why now?

Iraqi protestors were very close achieving their goals in deafening the Iranian inflation (invasion?) in Iraq and changing the future of this wounded country!

With this unexplained killing Iran became more powerful than before and will use Iraq as a baseline (base?) for any actions towards America! and guess what more Iraq’s will pay the price.

I’m very sorry for the killing of the Iraqi leader who, with support from American leaders, was able to stop ISIS! I don’t know if he just was a collateral damage of the attack!

I didn't respond to my friend's post as I don't like talking politics with friends in any other forum except face-to-face and either one-on-one or with a very small group of trusted friends, preferably over a beer. Keep in mind that there were 9 others killed in the drone attack besides Soleimani, so he's not necessarily talking about the intended target or targets. Perhaps you guys can tell me more precisely what he's talking about.

[Aseahawkfan]

Here's a copy and paste from a friend of mine's Facebook post. He's an Iraqi born immigrant with whom I worked with, served as one of his mentors, and developed a close friendship with. I've referenced him before in our musings. Now that I'm retired, I don't get a chance to see him much and when I do, it's in a social setting that's not a good place for talking politics, so I haven't had an opportunity to talk with him about his comments, but I thought them worth sharing:

I’m not a big talker about politics and doing my best avoiding arguing about it.

Trump ordered the killings of two very powerful leaders that fought and defeated terror in the Middle East and specially in Iraq .
The big question is why did he do that inside Iraq and why now?

Iraqi protestors were very close achieving their goals in deafening the Iranian inflation (invasion?) in Iraq and changing the future of this wounded country!

With this unexplained killing Iran became more powerful than before and will use Iraq as a baseline (base?) for any actions towards America! and guess what more Iraq’s will pay the price.

I’m very sorry for the killing of the Iraqi leader who, with support from American leaders, was able to stop ISIS! I don’t know if he just was a collateral damage of the attack!

I didn't respond to my friend's post as I don't like talking politics with friends in any other forum except face-to-face and either one-on-one or with a very small group of trusted friends, preferably over a beer. Keep in mind that there were 9 others killed in the drone attack besides Soleimani, so he's not necessarily talking about the intended target or targets. Perhaps you guys can tell me more precisely what he's talking about.

I need you to find out if this guy is Sunni or Shia. You don't seem to grasp these words and yet they are vital to understanding the Middle East. Sunni and Shia are like Catholics and Protestants during the religious wars in Europe. It's serious.

My initial assumptions since this Iranian general is Shia, then the Iraqi general meeting with him was Shia. It sounds like your friend is Shia. If he is Shia, then he would be unhappy with this killing. I'm guessing the general was a Shia supporter as Iraq is divided anywhere between 50-50 to Shia-Sunni to 30 Sunni 70 Shia. Different numbers are reported.

The Shia are supported by Iran. The Sunni are supported by Saudi Arabia and former supporters of Saddam.

That is why my Iraqi buddy is happy. He is Sunni. Solemani was against Sunni power. I have another friend that is probably more like your friend who is Shia. He was an Iran supporter. He followed an Iranian Shia cleric with strong Iraqi supported called Sistani. Moqtada al Sadr is also Shia. He supports the Shia cause.

This Shia-Sunni conflict is based on some very different ideas. Iran is the home base for Shia power in the world. Saudi Arabia and most other Middle Eastern nations are Sunni. Sunni sent more people to pursue conversion, so they have more power in the world by numbers.

Here is an ok summary, though I don't think he is right about Shiite power residing in oil rich nations other than Iraq and Iran:


https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

Here is a shorter discussion of Wahhabism, the national religion of Saudi Arabia:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

These are some factors you should understand a little bit to understand how the Middle East works and why certain ideas seem prevalent there. They have a source much as our ideas about the world have a source. Humans do not react as they do without reasons. Though Israel is a big point of contention, part of the problem stems form cultural and religious ideas permeating the Middle East. We stepped into their conflict. picked sides with the Sunni, and haven't been able to get out of that area of the world since WW1.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think anyone is unhappy that he's dead. It's the way Trump did it, and what has happened since then to destabilize the region even more. Most Americans feel this has been handled badly, and the VP, AG, and SOS are making it worse trying to dig out of the mess without contradicting Trump (a thankless task).That is not really debateable, but I don't think that would deter you.

I don't much care what most Americans think to be honest with you. Most of them know jack squat about the Middle East and pretend to be concerned about things they don't understand. Most Americans would be happy if we removed ourselves from world affairs so they would never have to worry about thinking of these things. I'd be ok with this if I thought our government would actually do this because Americans are so ignorant of world affair, that when something like this happens they act like it is happened outside of a continuum that hasn't ended since we first started interfering in that area of the world. That isn't true at all. This is all ongoing conflict every administration has had to deal since we involved ourselves in world affairs after World War 1.

The anti-Trump press is saying the attack destabilized the region, while at the same time listing all the ways this guy destabilized the region. So you tell me? How does that work that this general was working to resist us and increase Iran's influence, but somehow the way we killed him destabilized the situation? Explain how that works. Because it sounds to me like your buying the media narrative rather than looking at what this guy was doing like recruiting for militias to attack our embassy and working against us in Iraq. How long do we let that pass?

As far as I see it, Trump sent a clear message that if Iran pushes it, we will respond with force. That is the only message Iran understands. All this BS Iran deal Obama made was showing weakness while Iran stacked reserves of money to further trouble us and did not have to agree to secede from using that money to fund military operations against us. It was an incredibly weak deal that a bunch of Democrats are polling they supported, yet I'd bet you a million dollars 90% of Americans polled didn't even understand that deal at all.

I read that deal. It was only to stop for 20 years pursuing nuclear weapons. No clauses for not spending all that money from cessation of sanctions to halt their troubling Israel, working against us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and similar operations. It was a terrible deal that allow Iran to kill Americans using oil money sold to places like Europe and China as long as they didn't pursue nuclear weapons.

Read this tired crap. Break down to me why it was a good deal for America to allow Iran to build up cash while agreeing to this trash. You want to talk about how brainwashed Trump followers are, well as I see it Democrats aren't much different are they? Because if they support this awful deal, then they are either ignorant as to the details of the deal or willfully supporting huge sums of money going to someone funding non-nuclear military operations against America. That deal pissed me off when it happened. I have no idea why Americans think it is in any way acceptable including yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework

[RiverDog]

I need you to find out if this guy is Sunni or Shia. You don't seem to grasp these words and yet they are vital to understanding the Middle East. Sunni and Shia are like Catholics and Protestants during the religious wars in Europe. It's serious.

My initial assumptions since this Iranian general is Shia, then the Iraqi general meeting with him was Shia. It sounds like your friend is Shia. If he is Shia, then he would be unhappy with this killing. I'm guessing the general was a Shia supporter as Iraq is divided anywhere between 50-50 to Shia-Sunni to 30 Sunni 70 Shia. Different numbers are reported.

The Shia are supported by Iran. The Sunni are supported by Saudi Arabia and former supporters of Saddam.

That is why my Iraqi buddy is happy. He is Sunni. Solemani was against Sunni power. I have another friend that is probably more like your friend who is Shia. He was an Iran supporter. He followed an Iranian Shia cleric with strong Iraqi supported called Sistani. Moqtada al Sadr is also Shia. He supports the Shia cause.

This Shia-Sunni conflict is based on some very different ideas. Iran is the home base for Shia power in the world. Saudi Arabia and most other Middle Eastern nations are Sunni. Sunni sent more people to pursue conversion, so they have more power in the world by numbers.

Here is an ok summary, though I don't think he is right about Shiite power residing in oil rich nations other than Iraq and Iran:


https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2007/02/12/7332087/the-origins-of-the-shiite-sunni-split

Here is a shorter discussion of Wahhabism, the national religion of Saudi Arabia:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

These are some factors you should understand a little bit to understand how the Middle East works and why certain ideas seem prevalent there. They have a source much as our ideas about the world have a source. Humans do not react as they do without reasons. Though Israel is a big point of contention, part of the problem stems form cultural and religious ideas permeating the Middle East. We stepped into their conflict. picked sides with the Sunni, and haven't been able to get out of that area of the world since WW1.

Like I said, I don't get much of a chance to talk politics/religion with my friend as we have a lot of other topics in common that we usually end up talking about on those few chances we get to shoot the breeze. I posted it just to give you guys a little different perspective from an Iraqi native. He's a really good guy. We had a very diverse work group, and he made friends with and loved working for one of our supervisors that was a former army captain that did a tour in Baghdad, a young female that's Jewish, and so on. When he passed his citizenship test, some of the girls taped two little American flags to his locker, bringing a huge smile to his face. Years later, when I told him of my seeing his reaction, he said "I still have those flags."

Anyhow, I obviously have a huge amount of respect for the guy and find it concerning that he objected to the strike.

I'll look over the links you suggested. Thanks for the advice. I'm the first to admit that I don't know enough about the subject. The main thing I don't like about this decision is how Trump went about it. His claim that there was an eminent threat to 4 of our embassies was news to his own defense secretary. It's like every other decision he makes: By the seat of his pants. He's not truthful enough to trust him when he justifies his actions.

I-5 and Hawktalk, I'd welcome your opinion on this.

[I-5]

What kind of expertise does it require to know that Trump f'ed up in Iran? What does the Iran deal have to do with justifying what he did in ordering an assassination and admitting it? This is starting to sound a lot like Fox and even Trump's own talking points.

Also, what does 'It was a terrible deal that allow Iran to kill Americans' actually mean? That sounds EXACTLY like the words Trump said verbatim. Is there a rule we're not aware of that 'allows' killings? Crazy talk.

[RiverDog]

What kind of expertise does it require to know that Trump f'ed up in Iran? What does the Iran deal have to do with justifying what he did in ordering an assassination and admitting it? This is starting to sound a lot like Fox and even Trump's own talking points.

Also, what does 'It was a terrible deal that allow Iran to kill Americans' actually mean? That sounds EXACTLY like the words Trump said verbatim. Is there a rule we're not aware of that 'allows' killings? Crazy talk.

The Iran nuclear deal is not a justification for an assassination. We are a nation that is at peace with Iran. IMO the only justification is if there were direct and eminent threats to the lives of innocent Americans by not taking this course of action.

If Trump could prove his claim that there was an eminent threat to just one embassy, let alone four, I would stand by the decision. But knowing how often and how brazenly he's been known to be untruthful about even the simplest and inconsequential of things, I can't take him for his word like I would Obama or Bush, and the very tepid statements made by members of his own cabinet leads me to believe that he's grasping for straws.

[Hawktawk]

The Iran nuclear deal is not a justification for an assassination. We are a nation that is at peace with Iran. IMO the only justification is if there were direct and eminent threats to the lives of innocent Americans by not taking this course of action.

If Trump could prove his claim that there was an eminent threat to just one embassy, let alone four, I would stand by the decision. But knowing how often and how brazenly he's been known to be untruthful about even the simplest and inconsequential of things, I can't take him for his word like I would Obama or Bush, and the very tepid statements made by members of his own cabinet leads me to believe that he's grasping for straws.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-t ... 1579240704

Now we learn the administration lied about casualties. Actually they lied about a couple of things. They had also said the missiles were mostly off target. Reporters who have been granted access as well as satellite imagery shows extensive damage to the compound including US barracks as all but one missile hit the intended target. And in fact Iran clearly targeted the American side of the base. Its miraculous we didn't lose troops and had there been no warning we would have had mass casualties from the thousand pound warheads raining down.

There's a saying "a lie is halfway around the planet before the truth gets out of bed". Much like the Walrus Barrs 4 page fraudulent whitewash of the mueller report these false statements set the narrative, totally political and completely despicable.

How the Iran deal factors in is a mystery. Obama negotiated it with our allies around the globe as well as russia and china. It wasn't perfect but according to every ally as well as Tillerson, Mattis etc, all the military people it was worth preserving.Even many republicans and even democrats who opposed it felt that a deal was a deal and we should honor it. Not one direct act of violence from any Iranian proxy group had been directed at US forces since it was signed in 2015 even though that was not directly addressed in the agreement.
But Trump ignored all but the few Iran Hawks in his cabinet as well as Sean Hannity etc on Fox and killed it. Now here we are. Beyond all the violence over the last 2 years as a natural reaction to being financially strangled by a nation that tore up a deal there's the matter of assassinating a uniformed general, the most powerful uniformed military person in a sovereign state with no formal military action or declared war.

International law requires an imminent threat in such a situation. Clearly there isn't one, the imminent threats have occured after he was killed. This is significant, particularly considering there were numerous other people in that convoy executed whose crime was driving a car down the road or providing typical security for a high ranking official. It doesn't matter he was a horrible person or that many people celebrate his death. You can't just legally drone people who are bad people to wag the dog.

Iran has taken a war crimes complaint to the Hague regarding this action and it will be interesting to see how that unfolds. Either way our credibility with our allies is at a dismal unprecedented low as America is viewed as less and less trustworthy, our bond is now $#it, made totally worthless at the whims of the petulant wanna be strongman.

[RiverDog]

Now we learn the administration lied about casualties. Actually they lied about a couple of things. They had also said the missiles were mostly off target. Reporters who have been granted access as well as satellite imagery shows extensive damage to the compound including US barracks as all but one missile hit the intended target. And in fact Iran clearly targeted the American side of the base. Its miraculous we didn't lose troops and had there been no warning we would have had mass casualties from the thousand pound warheads raining down.

You can't blame the Administration for that misinformation. They were simply repeating what the Pentagon had said. Additionally, the injuries to Americans were concussions, which are difficult to detect and not always apparent. Initial reports in incidents like this are often times filled with inaccuracies.

[Aseahawkfan]

What kind of expertise does it require to know that Trump f'ed up in Iran? What does the Iran deal have to do with justifying what he did in ordering an assassination and admitting it? This is starting to sound a lot like Fox and even Trump's own talking points.

Also, what does 'It was a terrible deal that allow Iran to kill Americans' actually mean? That sounds EXACTLY like the words Trump said verbatim. Is there a rule we're not aware of that 'allows' killings? Crazy talk.

So he messed up with Iran and your concerned about assassinations when we've been assassinating people with drones for ages years from the days of Bush through Obama to now. You were ok with it when it wasn't this Iranian general or this president? This is why it's hard to respect your attempts at discussion. You may not be as insulting as [b]Hawktawk/b], but it's obvious you hate Trump and it colors your opinion of everything he does.

[Aseahawkfan]

Like I said, I don't get much of a chance to talk politics/religion with my friend as we have a lot of other topics in common that we usually end up talking about on those few chances we get to shoot the breeze. I posted it just to give you guys a little different perspective from an Iraqi native. He's a really good guy. We had a very diverse work group, and he made friends with and loved working for one of our supervisors that was a former army captain that did a tour in Baghdad, a young female that's Jewish, and so on. When he passed his citizenship test, some of the girls taped two little American flags to his locker, bringing a huge smile to his face. Years later, when I told him of my seeing his reaction, he said "I still have those flags."

Anyhow, I obviously have a huge amount of respect for the guy and find it concerning that he objected to the strike.

I'll look over the links you suggested. Thanks for the advice. I'm the first to admit that I don't know enough about the subject. The main thing I don't like about this decision is how Trump went about it. His claim that there was an eminent threat to 4 of our embassies was news to his own defense secretary. It's like every other decision he makes: By the seat of his pants. He's not truthful enough to trust him when he justifies his actions.

I-5 and Hawktalk, I'd welcome your opinion on this.

I will keep this simple. I do not know how to emphasize this to you enough. Shia and Sunni are very divided. Find out if he is Shia or Sunni, then you have your answer. It is literally that simple. You don't seem to understand how polarized the Shia and Sunni are. When you talk about Iraq, that is the difference in viewpoint. Sunni will be happy this general is gone. Shia will be unhappy.

If your friend is Sunni and unhappy, I will be surprised. If he is Shia, then that is all I need to know as to why he would be unhappy this guy was killed.

America is allied with the Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is the center of Sunni power with the Wahhabi/Salafi sect of Islam. We made a lot of people happy with this guy's death. He was an enemy to many Sunni Muslim nations.

Once again, i await your answer. Ask if he is Shia or Sunni, get back to me. I would love to hear. I know both Shia and Sunni. That conflict is very real. The Shia have a holiday known as Asura and there are often murders of Shia at these mournings where a Sunni radical bombs them. It is terrible. They do not get along at all. If a Shia militia leader was killed during this hit on the Iranian general, then Shia Iraqi will not be happy.

Assuming Iraqi are all alike and get along would be a huge mistake on your part. Shia and Sunni Iraqi are practically like South and North Koreans.

[RiverDog]

Once again, i await your answer. Ask if he is Shia or Sunni, get back to me. I would love to hear. I know both Shia and Sunni. That conflict is very real. The Shia have a holiday known as Asura and there are often murders of Shia at these mournings where a Sunni radical bombs them. It is terrible. They do not get along at all. If a Shia militia leader was killed during this hit on the Iranian general, then Shia Iraqi will not be happy.

Assuming Iraqi are all alike and get along would be a huge mistake on your part. Shia and Sunni Iraqi are practically like South and North Koreans.

You're likely to have a long wait, so don't hold your breath. He's a friend of mine from work, and when we get together, we don't often talk politics or religion as there's usually at least 3 or 4 others around at the same time. I got to know him personally when we worked graveyards together, when he came to my house to study (I was a mentor of his), when he visited me in the hospital, etc. But if I get an opportunity, I'll let you know. We've talked about going on a camping trip, and there's no better place to solve the world's problems than around a campfire, but that won't come until summer.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're likely to have a long wait, so don't hold your breath. He's a friend of mine from work, and when we get together, we don't often talk politics or religion as there's usually at least 3 or 4 others around at the same time. I got to know him personally when we worked graveyards together, when he came to my house to study (I was a mentor of his), when he visited me in the hospital, etc. But if I get an opportunity, I'll let you know. We've talked about going on a camping trip, and there's no better place to solve the world's problems than around a campfire, but that won't come until summer.

Its all I can give you then because that is pretty much what it comes down to as far as to why your friend is unhappy this general was killed, same as here your stance on Trump often comes down to whether your Democrat or Republican. You want to understand the flow of issues in the Middle East, learn the Shia and Sunnia conflict. Shia in Iraq will often be unhappy this guy is dead, Sunni will be happy he is dead. Not everyone obviously, but as far as general groups go. The Iranian general was Shia. He was meeting with Shia leaders. He was likely supporting them against the United States and their interests. So what Trump did was hit a group that are against United States interests. He was the architect of a lot of headaches in our region. Trump may want to say things that he can't say right now because it is top secret intel that may endanger lots of intelligence assets we have in the region. His advisers know better than to talk, but the press and people like I5 are going to talk smack about what happened because they don't care how things are in that region. The don't follow all the Iranian backed hits on our American assets and American supporters in that region that killed our soldiers and supporters.

I know what Trump did was fine. It was prepared by others who know better than Trump who needs to be taken out. It sent a message to Iran that we can reach any of you anywhere, so you had better back off. That is a good message to send that country given their interference against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Syria. Iran was emboldened by that BS Obama Iran deal. Their tiresome behavior needed to be checked. It was.

Trump probably didn't even know who the guy was until he was told. He probably asked more than a few people around him if this was a good guy to hit. He got confirmation that was. He did it. No idea why people think this was Trump's idea. Seems he's dumb when people want to him to be dumb, but he's smart enough to know who this guy is when people want him to be? Give me a break. This guy was a target for a long time. Iran stepped over the line. I'm good with it. Iran needed a punch in the nose and they got it. iran is lucky Trump isn't Bush Jr. and Cheney or we might have troops on the ground.

[Hawktawk]

So he messed up with Iran and your concerned about assassinations when we've been assassinating people with drones for ages years from the days of Bush through Obama to now. You were ok with it when it wasn't this Iranian general or this president? This is why it's hard to respect your attempts at discussion. You may not be as insulting as [b]Hawktawk/b], but it's obvious you hate Trump and it colors your opinion of everything he does.

Not sure why I'm so "insulting" or I5 somewhat less so according to your analysis. If people who strongly oppose the apostasy in the white house offend you look in the mirror, dont blame us.

As for presidents droning people for years you are CORRECT. HW Bush sluiced thousands of Iraqi Republican guards on the road to Basra until the media intervened showing the burned hulks 8 wide across the desert stretching for miles that had been decimated by cluster bombs. GW obviously killed a LOT of terrorists and Iraq troops and later Saddam Hussein. Obama ordered the killing of Bin Laden in an even more ruthless and risky fashion , flying across Pakistani airspace, a kill by a seal with a shot between the eyes and confiscation of the body. But Obama droned a lot of people. Matter of fact Obama was referred to as the "drone king" and was estimated to have ordered 5000 or more drone strikes as he was averse to boots on the ground.

BUT NONE OF THESE GUYS TOOK OUT SOLEMANI........Nor did bad ass Mossad who are ruthless and experts at making people wake up dead. Israel will do anything to protect themselves. Ask Iraq about their Nuclear reactors back in the day . But not Solemani.

So thanks for confirming the point the reasonable people have been making. This guy was too controversial and taking him out could cause a flash point that could spiral out of control. The aftermath with ballistic missiles raining down injuring our troops, the horrific spectre of Nuke bombers in diego garcia, the thousands of troops deployed to the middle east, evacuations of personnel and civilians clearly made a lie out of the administration saying it made us safer..It was a creepy few days and only a fool thinks the shock waves are over. The fight on ISS and training of Iraqi troops is suspended as well as Iraq now wanting us out.

In addition it was possibly a war crime taking out the top uniformed general of a sovereign state in this fashion without declared war and in a third sovereign nation.Everyone who was in the entourage was killed including an Iraqi citizen. There is no imminent threat that has been produced and Iran has taken this matter to the hague for war crimes.

Explain how this was no big deal Asea. This wasn't Bin Laden, an avowed terrorist responsible for thousands of US deaths on our mainland. It wasn't Al Baghdadi hiding in a cave having ordered the killings of thousands in the most brutal inhumane ways possible.

This was a Uniformed top guy and hero to millions who wanted the US out of the middle east, something you claim to want as well. His crime against America was primarily facilitating the delivery of IEDs to al qaeda in Iraq, which killed around 400 troops and injured thousands more, many with PTSD from the ultimate soldier terror weapon. And for that and supervising covert terror actions around the world he's a terrorist that needed droned ASAP. We now know it was initially approved with conditions 7 months ago and that when Trump picked it off a list of options his military brass was stunned and tried to change his mind. I dont know if you dont follow the news or just dont believe it but this was Trump's Idea, 100%. He owns it. Obviously we hope for the best but It's hard to believe more won't lose their lives over this. By the definition of supplying lethal weapons to the battlefield that probably makes raytheon and northrop grumman terrorists to a lot of people too..

[RiverDog]

Its all I can give you then because that is pretty much what it comes down to as far as to why your friend is unhappy this general was killed, same as here your stance on Trump often comes down to whether your Democrat or Republican.

I'm not sure if it's Soleimani's being killed that he's upset about or not. There were 9 others that lost their lives in that drone attack, and he did make mention of collateral damage and he did question the timing and location. Additionally, I don't know if his specific religious or ethnicity has anything to do with his being upset at the attack. He's shown the ability to set that kind of stuff aside when forming his opinions of others. Just like I wouldn't want someone to make the mistake that because I'm old, white, male, and a conservative that I'm a Trump supporter I wouldn't want to make a similar mistake with my friend.

[Hawktawk]

Nobody in either party but Ilhan Omar to my knowledge has mourned the passing of this guy. But the American people disapprove of his handling of this, with a majority saying we are less safe. They get wag the dog. The hard core 30% love it of course.
To me it was just really creepy thinking about a top uniformed general and his entire entourage being killed by a reaper drone shadowing them on a public highway outside an international airport in a third country. Iraq's prime minister said he was planning to meet in the morning to discuss a treaty with Saudi Arabia,if true he was on official business as an invited guest of Iraq. Are we going to drone all the bad guys now?How would we feel if Iran droned Pence or Pompeio? how about Rocket man building more and better missiles than ever according to a US general just yesterday? and he's got many nuclear warheads as well but he's trumps buddy and Solemani had to die then and there...

Payback is a mofo, a dish best served cold. I fear some people, maybe important people are going to pay the ultimate price for this act.
Trump's foreign policy dumpster fire in general is scary.

[Hawktawk]

Just when you think it cant get any weirder....https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZ5CeH Rich donors with absolutely no security clearance know more about this than the gang of 8 . Yeah I know, settle down HT, its no big deal

[RiverDog]

Just when you think it cant get any weirder....https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ar-BBZ5CeH Rich donors with absolutely no security clearance know more about this than the gang of 8 . Yeah I know, settle down HT, its no big deal

Yup, I saw that. It's not weird at all, more like par for the course to use a term you're familiar with, and shouldn't surprise anyone who's paid attention over the past 3 years. Lots of people have complained about the King of Twitter being unable to keep his cake hole shut on national security matters.

I think of what it would have been like when JFK had in his top desk drawer CIA photos of missile bases under construction in Cuba when he met with the Soviet ambassador who was denying rumors of activity that something was going on if instead it were Donald Trump sitting behind the desk.

[I-5]

Besides calling Trump an idiot, fool, conman (he's all of that and much much more), I don't know who on this forum has been personally insulted by HT, Bob, myself, or anyone that I've seen. On the contrary, as I've said before, Hawkshack is a breath of fresh air among friends who may disagree, but still respectful.

Why is anyone taking offense at anything all if it's not directed at them? Weird.

[RiverDog]

Besides calling Trump an idiot, fool, conman (he's all of that and much much more), I don't know who on this forum has been personally insulted by HT, Bob, myself, or anyone that I've seen. On the contrary, as I've said before, Hawkshack is a breath of fresh air among friends who may disagree, but still respectful.

Why is anyone taking offense at anything all if it's not directed at them? Weird.

Where did that come from? Please use a quote or a reference so we know what you're talking about. I don't recall taking offense to anything anyone said, including HT.

[I-5]

Sorry Riv, sometimes I type on my phone, and when I do it’s not convenient to use the quote feature. I was referring to a few comments back from asf, but reading it again I see that asf used the word ‘insulting’ as applied to Trump, not himself. I do find it weird that he ‘defends’ Trump by saying anyone who hates him must not be able to see clearly. Maybe Trump is hated for a reason...not randomly.

Speaking of how long we’ve been in the assassination business, when was the last time we publicly (or secretly) assassinated a standing leader in a foreign government in a direct manner as this? I’m not unhappy he’s dead, but you can’t compare it to Bin Laden (fugitive), Al Bagdadi (Al Qaida). Saddam doesn’t count, either, since was tried and execute by an interim Iraqi govt.

[Hawktawk]

Sorry Riv, sometimes I type on my phone, and when I do it’s not convenient to use the quote feature. I was referring to a few comments back from asf, but reading it again I see that asf used the word ‘insulting’ as applied to Trump, not himself. I do find it weird that he ‘defends’ Trump by saying anyone who hates him must not be able to see clearly. Maybe Trump is hated for a reason...not randomly.

Speaking of how long we’ve been in the assassination business, when was the last time we publicly (or secretly) assassinated a standing leader in a foreign government in a direct manner as this? I’m not unhappy he’s dead, but you can’t compare it to Bin Laden (fugitive), Al Bagdadi (Al Qaida). Saddam doesn’t count, either, since was tried and execute by an interim Iraqi govt.

I cant remember a time in my life when we have assassinated this high ranking a uniformed officer of a sovereign nation absent declared war.Even more remarkable was killing him and his entourage with a drone outside an international airport in a third country. It was out of left field. Things are relatively quiet right now, I saw a few people were killed overnight in Iraq but its hard to tell whether there's any linkage. I saw where Iran has placed a bounty of millions on trumps life. Nobody will convince me that nobody will be radicalized, weaponized over this.

[Hawktawk]

Besides calling Trump an idiot, fool, conman (he's all of that and much much more), I don't know who on this forum has been personally insulted by HT, Bob, myself, or anyone that I've seen. On the contrary, as I've said before, Hawkshack is a breath of fresh air among friends who may disagree, but still respectful.

Why is anyone taking offense at anything all if it's not directed at them? Weird.

As someone of whom it was insinuated I had cost the forum some members with my style I'll respond. Its a 2 way street, sometimes 3 or 4 way in OT but I've said some things in here I'm not proud of. Calling ID a Trumptard was over the top although he is one by my definition of the term. Someone so loyal to Trump they refuse to accept he has ever done anything wrong,the type of person who brags about his dysfunction, shares his memes on FB. Of course I dont like hearing my refusal to accept the unacceptable is TDS either
My best buddy in the world is a single issue Trump guy.$. He's made a lot, he hates how the guy tweets and carries on, he thinks all the russia Ukraine stuff is politics( I think he convinces himself, he's too smart). But I get that, respect it. We just dont go there .I've got friends who aren't any longer on FB for their oversharing of trump.

I do find it sad that in an OT forum where many of us have been around for a decade or more, 19 years and counting here that people can get so bent out of shape that they just bail when they know what to expect. I just look at that big dude IDs avatar and I know id love having a beer with that guy.I know RD and a few guys have gotten together for games, I did with Prob back in 2005 with mixed but memorable results but I've been once bitten twice shy about trying it again. Even guys like Burrton and asea who are fond of referring to me as a loon, blinded by hate, mentally ill I've said before if I was sitting on a barstool and they sat down they would never know I was HT or vice versa.They would notice I'm a big built like a nose guard guy that looks and acts younger than I am, likes to laugh and can converse intelligently about most any topic.I've never been on my annual pilgrimage to sluggers that I wasn't in a conversation with the guy standing next to me within 5 minutes, sometimes a fan of the other team.I have an eerie story of a conversation I had in 2005 with a Steelers fan attending the Hawks 9ers game.Ive taken as much abuse in this forum as anyone, some deserved and some not. It doesn't upset me or make me consider not posting here. It just demonstrates the ignorance of assumption.

The point is nobody who knows me outside of this forum or my wife would call me crazy. I think our perceptions get skewed by the anonymity of the internet, the internet tough guy syndrome. Its too bad.

[RiverDog]

I do think that our rhetoric matters, not necessarily in this forum, but in the outside world.

I heard an explanation for Trump's popularity that seemed to me to have some truth to it. Trump's popularity is strongest amongst older white males, and fitting into that demographical group myself, I can understand how some people's mindset might have been influenced. Take a look at what we see on television: In movies and commercials, the middle aged or older white male is almost without exception made into the idiot, the unscrupulous character, the dishonest and untrustworthy buffoon (the State Farm commercials come to mind) that we despise or love to laugh at while the black/Asian/female is depicted as the victim or the exact opposite personality. It seems to me that due to political correctness, no one wants to depict a minority or female in a bad light but no one has a problem doing such to an older white male.

I do think that there is a subliminal message being sent to older white males that manifests itself into a an irrational link between Trump and themselves, and that when someone uses such crass and demeaning terms to describe Trump that they internalize it and take it as a criticism of themselves. They feel that both as individuals and as a group, they're under attack and are being blamed for everything from poverty to global warming, that the world they handed off to the succeeding generations is a God awful hell hole that was mismanaged by a pack of fools.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with any of my statements, just throwing out something to think about.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/veterans-d ... 1579733650
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -that-bad/
I watched the president's statements on this. Beyond the sheer ignorance about brain injury there was the utterly offensive linkage of troops injured by roadside bombs and concussions suffered by 1000 LB or more warheads landing on inadequate bunkers designed for mortar and rocket fire. Put his fat captain bone spurs @$$ in there and see how he likes it....The message was clearly "we had to kill Soleimani so take your punishment ,quit whining and making me look bad". It was delivered in a belligerent tone, not the least bit of respect or concern for these troops with brain trauma. Its risk that he embraces the military when they praise him like the war criminal he pardoned but if they cross him they are whiners or never trumpers. Then he wraps himself in the flag.

And beyond that the disheveled appearance of Trump was the worst I've seen. He looked like a 72 year old man who had been up raging all night. Based on the record # of tweets(well over 100 yesterday while in Davos at an economic summit) in which he praised himself 2026 times while raging at democrats my guess is he did.

I feel so super safe with the stable genius at the controls