Trump Thread

[Pannonian]

If Iran retaliates by, say, launching a cyber attack on the US National Grid, shuts down the Eastern Seaboard and people die - that will be considered an attack against NATO. Likewise, if Iran launches assassinations of US military personnel in Europe that will be considered an attack against NATO.

If the US invokes Article Five then the European nations will have no choice but to go along because without the US we cannot collectively oppose Russia - certain key members are not meeting their basic commitments, and others are about to be kicked out.

Hence "no choice".

This is completely different to the EU, which is a political project that the majority of voters rejected - i.e. federalisation.

Has there been any evidence that that will happen? I suppose if Iran makes Sol go supernova, then it would count as affecting North America and Europe too.

Also, isn't NATO a defensive alliance?

[Montmorency]

lol

https://twitter.com/Mustafa_salimb/s...22979882143744

“I was supposed to meet Soleimani at the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi to Iran” Iraqi PM said.

[Crandar]

Cheeto in chief bombed the envoy that participated in an effort to deescalate a middle eastern conflict. Totally not a rogue state the US, just a Muslim terrorist terminated.

[edyzmedieval]

As we get more information about the circumstances, it becomes even mind boggling why this was done.

[Gilrandir]

As we get more information about the circumstances, it becomes even mind boggling why this was done.

To distract everybody from the impeachment ruckus?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To distract everybody from the impeachment ruckus?

Possibly. Though to be fair, this individual would have been considered a legit target at any time by our leadership and the strike package was in position. Moreover, the current NCA is not known for waiting for all aspects of a choice to be parsed out prior to making a decision, and there would have been clear pressure to act before the situation changed.

[Greyblades]

"we are not idiots" says the nation that keeps poking the bear.

To distract everybody from the impeachment ruckus?

probably not, Trump's making a fair bit of political hay out of pelosi's hesitation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not think we have the "smoking gun" needed for an article 5 against Iran. We'd have to show Iranian material support for a terrorist organization that directly attacked one of the member states. Such evidence might exist, but...

Has there been any evidence that that will happen? I suppose if Iran makes Sol go supernova, then it would count as affecting North America and Europe too.

Also, isn't NATO a defensive alliance?

That's the thing about escalation, you can't necessarily tell where it's going to lead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51004218

Iran rules out attacks on British targets saying "we are not idiots".

Separately, Britain warns America that attacks on Iranian cultural heritage would be war crimes.

[Pannonian]

That's the thing about escalation, you can't necessarily tell where it's going to lead.

You're the one speaking up for backing the Americans in this. Whether there's escalation or not, the Americans began this, so they can deal with it however they want, without our support. If you support tacking us to their military adventures whatever they decide, I will bring back your arguments against the EU. If sovereignty was a good enough argument to take us out of the EU, a solid demonstration of our lack of such will be good enough to take us out of NATO.

[Greyblades]

Considering this was done in retaliation for the iraq embassy attack, one in a tit-for-tat chain reaching back somewhere around about the formation of israel, the first one not the modern spiritual successor or the crusader knock off, I dont think it can be said with confidence who began this.

[Montmorency]

Technically correct, the man was however the most influential 2 star general in the revolutionary guard; the equivalent of the SS or comissariat, politically second only to the ayatolla. I also get the impression the Quds are also the only part of the Iranian millitary with recent combat experience, much of it supporting groups that are currently making american forces lives difficult.

Combined with personally taunting the god emperor (Gee, could it be I'm joking?) the man must have known he had a target on his forhead, making it foolish he was personally running about near a bagdad airport.

He wasnt some well intentioned diplomat, he was the coordinator of shia insurgents and millitias in the middle east, many of which are outright terrorists.

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

For reference: i do not disagree with anything said by adam - or condone the hit - merely point to the process that evolves the potential of a legitimate target before it is presented as an option to the CINC.

More on this:

Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration’s campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president’s private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump’s decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon’s long-standing concerns about escalation and the president’s aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the “lockstep” coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

“Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis,” said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. “Mattis was opposed to all of this.

[...]

At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

NB Pompeo (promoted from Trump's CIA director to Secretary of State) is an apocalyptic evangelical Christian who believe a final conflict in the Middle East will bring about the Rapture.

Theoretically the Iranians would be licensed to assassinate him.

"we are not idiots" says the nation that keeps poking the bear.

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

[Greyblades]

He's been doing this - business as usual - for decades, and knew he could die at any time from enemy bombs or bullets while abroad. Performing a dangerous job is not inherently foolish. Or if it is, the same applies to Coalition soldiers serving in the area.

The coalition soldiers dont have the entirety of the nations armed forces abroad relying upon their continued leadership, he had subordinates he could use as intermediary, the iranians have diplomats; needlessly exposing himself to the enemy's air superiority was foolish simply as evidenced by the red smear he became. It is doubly so for the void in command his death left and that iran now is attempting to fill.

This isn't a question of whether Suleimani was a good guy. He certainly wasn't. But he was a major general and a government official, a formal agent of the Iranian state in the same way a CIA director is for the USA, openly assassinated by a state party in broad daylight by massive explosion on the state property of another country, against the wishes of that country's government, while participating in diplomatic liaisons with that government.

Fairly sure sulemani didnt have diplomatic status/immunity, the western media would be raving it about if he did.

The matter here is of an American act of war against at least one country, and the consequences. This was in fact the first time since WW2 that America has killed a major military leader of a foreign country.

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly. Is it the stable borders that makes this millitary leader special or the fact they got the bullet instead of the Tomohawk missile?

As much as I doubt that it has been so long since the US has killed a millitary leader (the CIA would probably dispute such) is it so because the US has some chivalric code or is it because this guy is the first one foolish enough to personally poke his head into american controlled airspace?

'It all started when the Iranians hit us back.'

Funny you should say that when currently it is the iranians who are crying about being hit back.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're the one speaking up for backing the Americans in this. Whether there's escalation or not, the Americans began this, so they can deal with it however they want, without our support. If you support tacking us to their military adventures whatever they decide, I will bring back your arguments against the EU. If sovereignty was a good enough argument to take us out of the EU, a solid demonstration of our lack of such will be good enough to take us out of NATO.

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

[Montmorency]

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

FYI we rejected the League of Nations in large part due to Article X, which provided for mutual defense against external aggression. This was considered an abrogation of Congressional sovereignty.

[edyzmedieval]

For the record, let us remember where all of this started - the 1953 Iranian Coup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_I..._d%27%C3%A9tat

ttps://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthrew-irans-democracy-in-four-days

[Greyblades]

No it all started in 632 when noone could agree on who should be calif.

[Pannonian]

Speaking up for?

Where did I say war with Iran was a good idea?

As for comparing NATO and the EU - they're a world away from each other.

Is that your way of ensuring that your arguments are only applicable as far as you want them to be? "It's completely different, so the general philosophical argument that was universally applicable when I put it forward without need for specific examples is now completely inapplicable."

1. When the EU tells us to make sure that we comply with mutually agreed laws, it is an intolerable infringement on our sovereignty.
2. When the US tells us to send troops to their foreign adventure without even informing us beforehand, it is just a fact of life.

At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

Nope. Twitter.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that your way of ensuring that your arguments are only applicable as far as you want them to be? "It's completely different, so the general philosophical argument that was universally applicable when I put it forward without need for specific examples is now completely inapplicable."

1. When the EU tells us to make sure that we comply with mutually agreed laws, it is an intolerable infringement on our sovereignty.
2. When the US tells us to send troops to their foreign adventure without even informing us beforehand, it is just a fact of life.

At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

[Pannonian]

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.

When we joined NATO, it was a defensive bloc against the USSR and its satellites. The USSR and its empire are now gone, but NATO's remit has expanded and its advocates are now saying that we should send troops into the middle east for things that have nothing to do with its original purpose. Shouldn't we leave such an organisation that has expanded its goals so far beyond those for which we originally joined? Were we asked for our consent when it changed its goals?