Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

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.

Your calculation appears to be that the UK can afford to leave the EU but cannot afford to leave NATO; it seems to me more the other way around. The US and EU all have their overall interests - balance of powers, maintenance of trade, territorial integrity - aligned with each other. This is the case whether the UK is in or out of NATO. Whereas if it were not the case, NATO would be basically inoperative and irrelevant to British security.

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.

I don't think you understand what his job was. Air superiority had never been a problem before because he was protected by his position; usually it would have been a safe bet the US wouldn't be so foolish as to strike at him. What information do you have on any void created by his death?

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

Diplomatic immunity? He had the immunity of being a high-ranking government official. Countries don't kill those unless they're at war or are overthrowing governments. In the abstract that's why the US, when it wants someone dead, relies on local proxies for plausible deniability. We could always have bombed Castro into oblivion, for example, but that looks a little worse than funding locals who already want to kill him (as seen successfully in many Latin American coups, unsuccessfully in the Bay of Pigs debacle).

Baghdadi and Bin laden didnt count apparantly.

We were already occupying half of Syria, so killing another terrorist in Syria (who the government, and pretty much all other governments, wanted dead anyway) isn't going to raise a fuss.

Pakistani sovereignty complaints were raised in the Bin Laden raid. It has permanently damaged our relations with them.

Importantly, neither were officials of recognized governments.

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?

Most heads are free to poke because we don't normally bomb them when they're on official business. Unless we're at war. Because killing another country's officials is an act of war. It wouldn't be a good precedent to set for the sake of our own bureaucrats. Remember that our administration says it doesn't want war with Iran.

The last time the United States killed a major military leader in a foreign country was during World War II, when the American military shot down the plane carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

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

An Iraqi Shiite militia with Iranian ties killed an American, for which we assassinated an Iranian major general, a deputy chairman, a brigadier general, a major, a colonel, a captain, and various bureaucrats. Iran doesn't have to be a good actor for the United States to be a bad actor.

As there are enough of those still alive from the 1953 event to tell the story, and the first generation of those raised as children by those impacted by 1953 are often the ones in power at present, it is a pretty reasonable start point to explain the thinking underpinning the current set of events.

We're talking about American-Iranian relations here, so everything else is a distraction.

More importantly, we have all the instances after 1953 of America actively working to undermine the Iranian government and kill Iranians - even when Iran works toward a compromise. The Iran-Iraq war is the inflection point everyone currently remembers there. But after the two-punch of Bush and Trump, Iran would be crazy ever to deal with us in good faith again.

As regards the assassination, my understanding is that the general was in the country to meet with non government militias - militias which tend to undermine the credibility of the elected government. This is not to excuse the fact the general was assassinated but Greyblades is right - this is basically the same as the assassination of Bin Laden (that was a kill or capture missions, note kill comes first).

That is very incorrect on both counts. The PMF are formally part of Iraq's military organization, just like the similarly-autonomous Kurdish peshmerga, going up to the civilian leadership of the Iraqi PM; the Iraqi government is not unaware of their ties to Iran. Suleimani was first of all there to meet the Iraqi PM on matters of international politics, as I posted just recently. Osama bin Laden was not a part of any government, let alone a major figure. These are not incidental details.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954

Missiles fired at US military bases in Iraq.

Wow, that's it? Keeping it low-key, if there isn't something else on the pike.