no it hasn't, trying to equate different administrations and saying "they are all the same" is easily disproven based on war times, diplomatic goals, what was attempted to be avoided and so forth.
US Department of Defense confirms it targeted/killed Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force, outside Baghdad Airport
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
- Status
no it hasn't, trying to equate different administrations and saying "they are all the same" is easily disproven based on war times, diplomatic goals, what was attempted to be avoided and so forth.
The whole world knows this (yeah, generalization, I know, it's for point's sake), except for Americans. They kind of think this is just a Trump thing, but that ape just doesn't care about being "PC" about it. He's just American Government without a mask on.
Good to see western powers ganging up to wag their fingers at Iran/Iraq after these unprompted attacks.
A war with Iran is going to cripple the US diplomatically and economically, Trump has already done permanent damage to the US in terms of global leadership.
The current administration is not equipped to deal with an escalating shooting war with a prominent local power, they can't even get a handle on this situation.
The US getting bogged down in a war it's not equipped in handling, not to mentioned a war that has always been known to be a nightmare scenario for multiple reasons for any well managed administration, would essentially end global influence of the US for anything geopolitical.
This potential war has far ranging implications beyond the conflict itself
Like that will help, he will probably be infuriated that they are suggesting not to respond to Iran and that will make him look weak.
all in all how is this not shitting on Trumps legacy? Everything he is doing is damaging his own legacy in the end
In terms of foreign policy, who has tried to be different? Carter? Since the 40s we were anti Communist, so anti USSR, anti China, we've been at war with North Korea sice the 50s, have hated Iran since 1980, the only real major policy shifts were Egypt and arms control with the USSR. The Iran nuclear deal didn't lead to a cessation of our proxy wars with Iran, though it might have had it lived long enough. China's admission into the WTO was big but aside from us fighting them in Korea and our support of Taiwan nothing changed there. For a government that switches hands every 4 to 8 years we're remarkably(unfortunately) hesitant to move on from the past.
Every US administration played war games. Since the 50s and specially since the fall of the Soviet Union. No wonder why the US military budget has been always like its a world war.
Only one major flaw: Iran and Russia are allies. Letting the US bomb Iran into pavement prevents Russia from projecting into the Middle East-- which they have a vested interest in doing as a major petroleum exporter in competition with the Saudis. The way Trump's done this is so woefully stupid it risks too much for Putin.
Had to do a double take to make sure that wasn't a post from the early 2010's. Nope, a few minutes ago.
Everybody who has publicly spoken out has been ignored, forgotten and replaced with someone worse. Not sure how it benefits anybody at this point.
Yes, every US administration tries to forward US interests. That's what any country does.
Trying to equate each administration as "equal" when one administration is responsible for striking global climate deals, nuclear deals to prevent wars and so forth, while others literally start forever wars is beyond ignorant.
The moment a shooting war starts with Iran, we are locked into a forever war with Iran because the end result is Iran will attempt to develop a nuke and the US and the West will not allow such an outcome. The only way to end that outcome is indefinite US occupation of centrifuges.
Yes but without fucking up the rest of the world like the US does.
When bad administrations have control of the Executive Branch bad things happen, that's what we've been saying for decades. The US "fucks up the world" because the US is a global super power and has extended reach with allies and adversaries. Get more people like Obama in office and the US won't be tearing up nuclear deals and climate deals or cheering on shit like Brexit.
I don't think the USA will be able to recover from Trump breaking its "democracy" as it stands now, the two party system is a failure if one of the parties wants to destroy the constitution. Geo-politically, there is 0 point in negotiating anything with the USA if it will all just change at a whim. Contracts/agreements mean nothing.
Even if they wrote in that this is for X-years and must be Y, it will still be balled up.
Equal in the sense that they commit war crimes. Of course there is nuance that can make one administration worse than the other. No one is disputing that.
I mean Bill Clinton bombed a Sudan medicine factory, leading to 10k+ children dying of disease.
They don't want a direct, open war with the US taking place inside Iranian borders, sure. But a proxy-based, asymmetrical warfare campaign taking place on Iraqi soil that further destabilizes the region and slowly drains the US of their influence and standing? They've already proven they're down for that.
Yea, see the thing is "nuance" isn't major globe altering decisions that alter the course of geopolitical history. That's not what "nuance" means.
And now they have huge swaths of Iraqis who will outright welcome it.
What Iran was running in the region is by no means the product of one single person. And even if he really was that unique, he has been doing this long enough for those around him to get how it works by now. Real change from the assassination of one person didn't really pan out for tiny militia/terrorist organizations, expecting it from a country backed army with influences through at least four countries is just naive!
I would argue a lot of our presidents did that. For example, Bill Clinton ensured that Yeltsin win the election in Russia. He essentially did the same as Putin did with Trump. Yeltsin appointed Putin. Bush invaded Iraq, leaving a power vacuum where ISIS benefited from no Sadam. Obama did a regime change war ousting Gaddafi, leading to a further distrust in America demanding nuclear disarmament. I don't see why any country would want to get rid of nukes when nukes could serve as a deterrent from the US invading countries (Sadam, Gaddafi).
I still think Republican administration is worse. There is no disputing that. Especially at a time when we need to combat climate change. I'm just saying that when foreigners or other Americans mention how America continually violates international law and continues its endless wars destabilizing the middle east, they are right.
graveyards are full with people who couldn't be replaced.
Libya was a UN resolution with no major powers voting against and NATO led via France and the UK. Just placing that resolution and saying "Obama regime change" is literally twisting shit into a knot to try and spin narrative.
Is there anyone left in the military command structure that has the courage and moral fortitude to refuse an illegal order from the president?
That cushy private sector job would be there for him later too if he decided to actually ride through what has been started.
There isn't much to read into here, he is bailing the fuck out because he must really see what is going down inside the decision process atm.
Even Mattis bailed because he didn't want to be put into situation where he has to choose.
I know we have posters from Iran here, so am looking to get more information 'from the ground' as it were. From the way these funeral goers are dressed, they seem to be from the highly conservative segment of Iranian society. Do the urban and 'more secular' populations that people have talked about in past Iran threads including the anti mandatory hijab one mourn Soleimani too? Assuming the more secular members are actually representative of the population at large which from those crowds, I am guessing it is not and the amount of people against mandatory hijab are sadly a minority.
I am a complete outsider but I would imagine that for Iranians who weren't a fan of Soleimani that Trump's rhetoric since the assassination has done a hell of a lot to get them on board with the conservative elements of Iranian society.
I think even the more liberal elements of Iranian society hate Trump too, and I would too if he was gleefully wanting to destroy my cultural relics and history. Just wanting to get a read on the situation over there since I know a lot of Iranian women skirt the boundaries of the law by showing as much hair as is legally possible. But present someone a common enemy, and they will unite around the leadership even if they hate them in normal times.
The guy can't make a "yeah screw this clown I'm out" statement because it just ends up being a victory for America's enemies who I'm sure he has no love lost for. But resigning to go back to the private sector right fucking now of all times? There's no secret what that's broadcasting.
Fuck this. Its not the Iraqi's people's fault that the US assassinated a general on their territory. The Iraqi people shouldn't have to beg for shit. Them rightfully kicking the US' ass to the curb shouldn't be a sanctionable action.
Also, wasn't the current Iraqi regime basically installed by the US?
On its own it might not be something to read into but given that it follows an exodus of Pentagon officials all fleeing the U.S. military apparatus over the past few weeks, it paints a rather sobering picture of what's to come.
Trump hasn't hit bottom yet. Heck, there might not be a bottom for this miscreant.
The point is the Iraqi government is actively working against the benefit of their people just to please Iran, this is a war between 2 countries and they should have known well choosing a side would have consequences.
all of these people that step down without alerting the US public or making official statements/declarations are all 100% cowards.
Everyone pretends oaths mean shit, until you're actually met by a real threat to democracy.
Fuck reading between lines.
They just get replaced by more white supremacists who have no idea what they're doing. Must be NICE to not have to worry about the admin being fucking fascist. They've got theirs.
Everyone pretends oaths mean shit, until you're actually met by a real threat to democracy.
Fuck reading between lines.
They just get replaced by more white supremacists who have no idea what they're doing. Must be NICE to not have to worry about the admin being fucking fascist. They've got theirs.
Logically you choose the side that you share a huge border with an have a lot in common with culturally. You don't side with imperialists on the other side of the world who will eventually tire of supporting you and leave (the Kurds know this well). Iraq is making the smart decision by siding with Iran.
Carter worked from pretty much the same playbook.
The arming of the Taliban in Afghanistan started under him, and even though Aaron Sorkin made a movie about how that was actually a great idea, the whole world is still paying for that disastrous policy, his reaction to the Iran hostage crisis was to send in the troops, and Korea, well, it's worth reading what the US did during the Gwangju Uprising under him.
American foreign policy is just bad, I think it has more to do with the general cold war framework the US still work under more than any individual president (though as always in American politics, Republican tend to be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse at this shit).
I think America really needs an honest to god peace policy, and it needs it soon.
Yep...ppl probably dont know we assassinated irans leader before and put in a puppet cause they would not give us oil. Which is why they hate us when they threw that guy out. Bernie to my knowledge is the only us presidential candidate to talk about that
Uh...that was definitely not the message of Charlie Wilson's War.
- Status