Russia still uses their ancient bombers from the same era. They still very much have their uses - just not against a moderately defended country like Iran.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
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
Shout out to the guy earlier in the thread who said that defense contractors don't have any real effect on war mongering in this country.
They hate us for our freedom to fuck off and then still demand compensation despite our presence making everything worse
Shooting down a US bomber would be a good way to galvanize support...
Corporate media does their jobs while pretending to be foe resistance. This is exactly why, Trump's pathetic calls against the media aside, they are not your friend. They will happily spin if it means getting paid. And that means all the fake rhetoric they do against progressives as well, who have been warning against this sort of thing for a long time. Phil Donahue would back me up
Iraq all over again and CNN and MSNBC has been talking about Soleimani as the devil
Its time for America to realize how corporate media has a major hand in attempting to shape public opinion towards the imperalist neoliberal garbage we've been saddled with in the GOP and Democratic parties.
There are literally a handful of people in a position of power who have not drunk the kool aid.
There are literally a handful of people in a position of power who have not drunk the kool aid.
I am forever mystified why people don't protest outside of these complicit media outlets and call them out for aiding and betting America's corrupt war machine. These people are the ENEMY. You've allowed the Republicans to distort the truth by pretending that Western media outlets are against them and their interests when that couldn't be further from the truth.
I think it's really only with the advent of the internet that people in mass have started to realise that the mass-media news networks does not work for anything but profit.
Of course, people knew about it earlier, but the mask slips more and more as neoliberalism hits up against its ceiling.
OP
OP
I think all the talk about withdrawal is to muddy the water and make confusion before attacking Iran. B-52s are also there for carpet bombing after the first round of stealthy attacks and cruise missiles.
Edit: if I'm not wrong, US is also transferring amphibious landing forces to the middle east.
Edit: if I'm not wrong, US is also transferring amphibious landing forces to the middle east.
The US media started the Spanish-American war, they've been at this for over a century.
OP
OP
Iraq : "Please leave"
America "No, this is our country now"
Also just off topic, love seeing actual progressive celebrities crush Neoliberal trash
America "No, this is our country now"
Also just off topic, love seeing actual progressive celebrities crush Neoliberal trash
The US hasn't formally been asked to leave, and the vote yesterday was non-binding. I'd wait to see what happens when/if a binding vote happens.
I mean, did voters really reject their ideology when Trump explicitly stated that he wants to steal Middle Eastern oil and will go after not just suspected terrorists but their friends and families as well? If anything, it means voters do want that ideology, just explicitly and at its most psychotically extreme.
Great. How long until the UN decides that NYC isn't the best place for their hub considering we might act like this and bar global diplomats.
It's maybe for his own protection, they know they might not be able to prevent Trump from deciding to arrest or kill him ownce he got there.
We have to be forced in a binding resolution that we would not follow anyways. How is that any better
It's not too controversial that, under domestic law, the Executive branch can claim precedent from previous OLC opinions to justify the strike as an exercise of POTUS' Article II powers. It's understood that nearly all Executive branch lawyers (and Johnson was the DoD General Counsel at one point) argue for an expansive interpretation of the Executive's Article II powers. It's also understood that Congress has consistently abdicated its position on these matters for decades.
Johnson's position has nothing to do with his employment by Lockheed, but because his office authored some of these OLC opinions which the Executive branch is or will claim as precedent. I'm not discounting some self-serving aspect, but if you asked Happy Retired Grandfather Jeh Johnson vice Lockheed Board Member Jeh Johnson, you'd get the same answer.
I think this interpretation is wrong, but it's a domestic/constitutional question... and what's completely missing in most analyses is any discussion of international law, which is just as binding as domestic law. That discussion should assess the imminence of the attack and how that relates to the inherent right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.
Of course, the Administration's justification, and presumably the analysis, is classified. But Pompeo has already told several versions of the story, and that contradicts DoD press releases.
The Constitution is NOT the only "law of the land" -- treaties are too, like the Charter.
(See more by Oona Hathaway: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/soleimani-strike-law/604417/.)
Incidentally, I'm 100% within your camp on this one. Just for different reasons.
"We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure" seems very clear in its meaning.
The problem of course is that yes...the strike was illegal outside of America, like all the other strikes without congressional approval being illegal. Yes congress has abdicated its duty and the White house has taken full advantage..that's the problem. That doesnt say anything about how illegal or legal it is. The strike was absolutely an illegal act under international law at the least. But so has a ton of other USA foreign policy actions..
In addition....saying that 'of course executive branch lawyers will say executive branch can do whatever they want' isnt...comforting at all, and doesnt take away from the other point in that there was no disclosure whatsoever in the fact that this person was on the board of a major weapons manufacturer by the media before they trot him out as a credible source. Which YES, will absolutely influence his voice and opinions.
For once, you're getting no argument from me on anything.
My biggest point is that for far too long all aspects of the U.S. government have ignored treaties and customary international law -- which is what they train military personnel on -- and only talked about the Constitution. The Constitution is not the only thing that matters. It is on equal footing with the others.
Incidentally, the strike itself bothers me less than: (1) the lack of strategy involved (since it may have been technically legal but horrifically stupid), (2) the lack of any recognizable national security decision-making process, and (3) the subsequent public announcement that the U.S. is considering committing unambiguous war crimes, like attacking civilian cultural sites or engaging in acts that cause "disproportionate" harm (which necessarily means they're not targeting solely military sites).
the strike itself bad on its own. To think one of the excuses is "payback" for Iraqis protesting at the US embassy for blowing up sunni forces...the ones who were just helping us defeat ISIS. That'll teach those guys. Yeah plenty of those people historically have blood on their hands, but no less than any of the suits in Washington i say.
I am in no way excusing Soleimani; I think the world is better off without him, in a vacuum. Like if he had died in his sleep of old age. But 99% of people who cheered his killing didn't know who he was last week, and of those 99%, I bet all of them didn't realize he was organizing anti-ISIS militias as of late...
Your misunderstanding. im saying the strike should not have happend and served no real purpose, especially in the face of the danger the stike has opened up.
I think we're both misunderstanding each other, because I completely agree with your statement there.
I do. And I know, I was shocked too!
My position is that the strike should not have happened and served no good purpose, and in fact we don't even know what kind of blowback we're dealing with now (let alone the blowback innocent Iraqis may face, to say the least). I am not mourning Soleimani's death by any means. If he had died in his sleep from old age, I think it would have been a good outcome.
When Trump mentioned the end of 52 cultural sites TWICE, he probably meant all the McDonald's in Tehran, cause that is the extent of his "culture".
Which is why, thus far, only a handful of candidates have offered up the kind of measured response I'd want. Others may have issued more statements since the weekend when I looked, but at the time, it was just Bernie, Booker, and Yang. Only Yang called for the immediate repeal of the 2001 AUMFs; Bernie was more emphatic about saying what needed to be said.
Pompeo reportedly spoke with Netanyahu before the strike was carried out. He probably knew about it but is keeping his distance due to the blowback. If it was being received more positively he'd be hyping it up like he was in the immediate aftermath.
He wasnt a good person. We can acknowledge that while knowing it was a bad idea to kill him.
He was a nuanced character who helped us defeat ISIS....and was supposedly on a peace deal between saudis and iraq...which is not the devil. He had tons of blood on his hands, but you can probably say the same about any politician in the US....
Again...that's the problem...because the media intentionally does not even trace the history of the attack...which is the US just attackin the sunnis who were against ISIS when its the wahhabists who actually carry out terrorism against the US...which then caused the protests at the embassy which trump supposedly then saw and flew off the handle about
Just read about Trump's threat to demolish cultural site's in Iran, these are human accomplishments that go back to 6th century BC, Iran is home to one of the most impressive civilizations in the world, I'm devastated by the mere mention of this threat, the world really need to start to stand up against this twerp, to even consider removing these sites shows how dangerous he can be.
Now even Lindsey Graham is shitting on Trump's dumb ass.
Last edited:
This is mostly it. The dude was a piece of shit with the blood of innocents on his hands, but so is anyone in a similar position of government in a country that's trying to influence global affairs. We have tons of American citizens from government positions just as shitty of people as this guy. And really, I think the big thing to me is that it's not like what Iran is doing is unique, the Soviet decision makers who decided to arm the Vietcong against us had American blood on their hands and we didn't assassinate them, likewise the USSR did not assassinate the Americans behind training and arming the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion despite them having the blood of Soviet soldiers on their hands.
I look at it similar to spying, we're all spying on each other and it's a dangerous game with real consequences but rarely would it escalate because there is that understanding that we're doing the same to them.
I guess a country at some point can declare they're not playing some game and go after the puppet masters I just really hate the false indignation of their actions as if we're not doing the same shit. And the hypocrisy of that stance is insane to me. To demand we can hide behind our chosen faction's forces while demanding the other party can not, it's not just hypocritical, it's cowardly.
which poster was it, i want to call them an idiot
edit: from my chair irl, not in a post. which is completely 110% a-ok
- Status