Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

Asked and answered. Remember that I pointed out that there have been numerous claims from administration branches about events that have turned out to be false.

AND, I made it clear that the reasons for this assassination to be seen as not positive don't have to do with legality.

Try have some sort of direction other than attempting to nit pick.

 

OK that's a definition of a diplomatic mission, not what Soleimani was doing. You posted that he was on a diplomatic mission, please source it.

 

How is it a nitpick? Either we killed a diplomat on a diplomatic mission or we killed a terrorist.

 

Several times now I've clearly stated that as nearly as important as ANY of the other issues involved.

For example, nobody in Iraq or Iran is going to care whether we have some legal excuse for assassinating that guy.

Read my posts. Discuss the serious issues.

 

I've been discussing the issue you thought you wanted to discuss (whether Soleiman's killing was legal and whether he was on a diplomatic mission). I guess you've given up trying to prove that and are now switching the topic. If you are giving up on trying to prove the legality and diplomacy issue, I guess we're done.

 

I've never considered the legality issue as one of the important issues.

From the US point of view, there could be a legal question.

But, nobody in Iran or Iraq cares, and our action in the ME is what is important here.

The OP has to do with reaction in the ME, not the legality of the assassiation.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister was scheduled to meet Soleimani the morning he was killed

From CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq and Hira Humayun

Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi said at a parliamentary session on Sunday that he was scheduled to meet with Qasem Soleimani on the morning the top Iranian general was killed.

Mahdi said Soleimani was supposed to carry a message from Iran “in response to the Saudi message that we brought to Iran in order to reach important agreements and situations regarding Iraq and the region.”
Mahdi said he was optimistic after a visit to Saudi Arabia in September 2019 that Baghdad had a plan to open dialogue between Riyadh and Tehran to calm tensions in the region, according to an interview on state-run TV station al-Iraqiya.

Following Mahdi's speech at Parliament Sunday, Shia-majority blocs in the session chanted in support of Soleimani, and against the US and Israel.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/...l-01-05-20/h_7c821d1eb7c75ce4b103f0e8020a35e1

 

I don't know why that took so long.

I guess this is close enough, although the PM probably shouldn't have keep the meeting secret. I'm still going to say that I'm happy he's dead and that we should kill terrorists when we can.

 

BUT, you seem to have NO answers for the ramifications I brought up.

 

we learned things from the sinking of the Titanic, things are better now, but I would never say unsinkable - and of course human lives are on those ships as well

 

Ramifications? The only real change of status quo I see is that the US may get kicked out of Iraq, although that kind of works out for Trump too.

 

Maybe, but let's remember that our forces in Iraq are a major factor in reducing the influence of Russia and Iran.

With us fully out of Iraq, one would expect Iran to have serious influence in Iraqi politics and direction.

Should we give that up? Maybe, but that is FAR from being the kind of decision that should be made as no more than a ramification of some assassination.

If you like the assassination direction, remember that we could pull this off ONLY because we're in Iraq.

You keep trying to ignore all but your blood lust against this one guy.

We need a strategy and a plan before we start frittering away our advantages on acts like killing a single individual.

 

What was the strategy for killing, or to use your terminology, assassination, of Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, or al-Zarqawi? They were all replaced, just as Soleimani was. The "strategy" is to degrade the functioning of terror groups by hitting their organizational leadership. Now I realize it's been only been 19 years since 9/11 but I'm sure this war on terror has been in the newspapers at some point. It's stunning that an American needs to be educated on this.

But as to your other points, Iran and Russian influence, I can't recall a single cautionary note from the left when we pulled out of Iraq in 2011, even though Iran's influence in Iraq is the same as it was then, and Russia and Iran were allies even then. No one cared about Iranian influence, and I see no difference between then and now in terms of Iranian influence. I'm not sure what Russian influence you are worried about in Iraq but I don't think that's our biggest concern.

I'm just surprised at the level of groupthink among you leftists that are more worried about Trump than they are the Quds Force.

 

Now you're trying to claim that having weak planning and strategy in the past is justification for having NO planning or strategy today!!!

I'm more concerned about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel/Palestine than I am about Quds.

And, you should be, too.

Besides, we have NO approach to Quds forces that have a prayer of succeeding. So, claiming our assassination was progress is ridiculous. Our act may be no more than further motivation.

 

The goal is killing terrorists, the strategy is...to kill terrorists. Regardless whether they swear revenge or not. Al-Qaeda swore vengeance. That wasn't a justification to NOT kill Bin Ladin. Maybe you are asking a question that I'm not understanding. What was our strategy during the Obama administration when it came to killing terrorists?

 

Neither of those are plans OR strategies. For example, they both totally failed with the "troubles" between England and Ireland. It also failed in South Africa, where the apartheid regime's efforts to control the terrorism of Mandela was an abject failure.

I'm not an advocate of Obama wrt the ME. He certainly didnt do as much damage as Bush, who made the worst decision in American history. And, he didn't sufficiently change our strategy wrt Israel and their program of ethnic cleansing of the country of Palestine.

Basically, Obama continued policies as Bush had left them.

 

So your argument boils down to there being no strategy in the middle east for decades, damn Trump!

 

I pointed that out to ensure you that my position on this is not partisan.

Regardless of who is president, we need a clear and communicated plan.

Today, we don't have that. And, today is when we can do something about that. It's so much easier than building a time machine.

 

Well if you feel there is not now, and hasn't been a strategy for the Middle East for decades, that's interesting and all, but really doesn't have anything to do with this thread. Maybe you should start a thread explaining what you think US policy towards the Middle East should be. As far as Trump's strategy, I think the "Trump Doctrine" views foreign policy as a transactional realpolitik.

 

I would like to see the Dakar in Iran next year, Saudi Arabia was rather good.

 

In other words, Trump acts impulsively - without consulting of experts of either party.

Obviously, that makes America stand for NOTHING.

We've proved that we don't stand for the rule of law, we don't stand for our own word, we're in it totally for ourselves (especially for the political benefit of the one man in power). What we do today has NO bearing on what we might do tomorrow.

Do you really think this assassination was designed to be positive for American?

I don't. The reason is that NOBODY in the military or in the administration could form a consistent argument for that. And, that "nobody" includes Trump, obviously.

 

That would be a great idea, the US would loose its war capacity in the ME and Africa. No more US killer drones flown from Germany, no more troops or equipment and supplies flown to US war zones from Germany and or Europe. No more mongering in European and our national affairs. Please recall that idiot of Ambassador please, now would be great, the one in Berlin.
Would be good for the EU, one more corner stone they have to come together, defense, would accelerate it and strengthen the EU. No refueling stations, no military overflight rights.
No more NATO wars on the behalf of the US, out of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, stay in Kurdistan, great folks. Tell the Saudis to take a hike, those criminal bastards the US loves so much.
Buy the Nato head quarters in Brussels and remove that fricking 911 monument and dump the junk and recycle it, for the amount the US's share is and use it as the European defense department.
Charge the US for the environmental clean up of its bases, impound every piece of equipment, till the US has payed the last bill and than charge them again, for the removal of that equipment, or sell the junk to who ever wants it.
That's the US of Trump way, why should Europe not do it that way. I forgot tariffs, sorry.

It would be fantastic to see that token Army leave.

Just a response to you and your idea, I am a Atlantic European conservative.
Which means a friend of the US. But those would and should be the consequences, to your idea.

 

that mushroom will never happen, fantasy

 

I hope the US understands that, too. It is working very hard on that cork, at the present.

 

As I said before, if Iran ever sinks an CVN, the response will be nuclear.