US service member injured in rocket attack in Iraq

It's fascinating how some focus upon 'rotten Ronnie' or Clinton or Obama - and in the meanwhile
absolute monsters have gassed, assassinated, invaded, stole elections, seized whole seas,
taken away people's fisheries, established concentration camps, starved their own citizens,
smuggled nukes, developed nukes, shipped hundreds of thousands of rockets, shut down
internet connections, jailed dissidents, kidnapped kids, engaged in mass scamming for foreign
exchange and a million other misdeeds -- but if Biden drops a bomb on an Iranian arms depot
in Syria the righteous masses will take to the streets in protest.

 

He's frightening the locals though:

Middle Easterners Begin Painting Transgender Flag Colors On Doorposts To Avoid Biden Drone Strikes.

​

 

I don't think there is yet a verified death count, though when I heard the story, local citizens were claiming around 10 deaths, give or take a couple. This is, however, a SYRIAN militia that is only IRAN-BACKED, SUPPORTED (an Iranian PROXY force), so I would not expect any Iranians would be on-site. Regardless, I believe the number of deaths from Trump's fusillade of missiles at the enemy airfield was zero, so Biden's will be no lower. The point was to destroy important infrastructure that allowed the enemy to carry on its objectionable work.

 

The Brookings Institute is not the liberal equivalent of Breitbart or any of the slew of sites of dubious merit, and of obvious prejudice, I have seen sited by posters here, on the Right. Nor is it after the model of the former Village Voice or any truly liberal source of information. It is VERY middle-of-the-road, according to the numerous sources I cited, one of which merely counted up how many times Congressmen made reference to their ideas, & found only a small edge in Democrats' citings over those by Republicans.
If this qualifies as your idea of, "liberal," it only supports the conclusion that your gauge is out of whack with society. As I suggested in my prior reply, it is not your personal judgement which makes this designation factual; it is relative to the thinking of the society, on the whole. If you look around yourself & see a preponderance of, "liberal," news organizations, think tanks, and what have you, THAT MAKES THEIR DISPOSITION, BY DEFINITION, CENTRIST.

Perhaps your error is seeing your own perspective as, "moderate." If there aren't roughly the same number of people who are more Conservative than you as there are people whose views are more Liberal than your own, than you are not a moderate (which means that views to your left are not all liberal; half of them will be the entirety of all those who are, actually, moderates).

To your post's other point, my recollection of the Trump event is markedly different than your own. This might be the perfect opportunity to assess the accuracy of your media perceptions. Perhaps you could put forth one of the, supposedly, universal headlines in the MSM that viewed Trump's missile fusillade as, "OMG WWIII!"

As I remember it, there was a criticism that he had, or likely/possibly had, warned Putin of the attack, far enough in advance for him to warn our target. I remember there, oddly, being NO PLANES on the field when we, "attacked," so none were destroyed. In fact, despite the pricey display, I seem to recall that the airfield was back in use in about a week. What I definitely do NOT remember hearing from the overall Mainstream opinion (& my sources, because of my housemate, were definitely Left of center) were exaggerated concerns over the action being tantamount to starting a war (much less, WW3). It was looked at, basically, as almost the least he could do. But that's how I remember it. Let's both do quick searches & post what we find, to see which of our impressions jibes with the actuality.

And as for our recent action against the Iranian-backed, Syrian militia, I have not heard anyone refer to it as anything comparable to, "BOLD LEADERSHIP!!!" It actually hasn't been getting all that much coverage, relative to other stories in the news. But the coverage that I saw, said that Biden had been presented, by military advisors, with a range of possible actions, from which he selected one of the most conservative ones (if you don't mind my using the term) with the least liklihood of leading to an escalation. It was characterized as a reminder. No one called it bold; a more accurate appraisal of the media discussion would be to say they felt this action was, "normal," that is to say, carried out in the tradition of past Presidents, who consult with advisors, & value their opinions.

So, once more, one of us seems to have an impression of the coverage that does not track with fact. Even in the unlikely, but possible, event that two Mainstream outlets had such diverse takes, yours would still be wrong, because you claimed that it was, "the liberal media," in general, that had the reactions you described, whereas, particularly for this recent action, I am claiming no more than I know to be true: the coverage I saw on one particular station, left of Mainstream (MSNBC) so, specifically from the liberal media you assert has concluded something different than I would characterize their reaction. So, if you end up being wrong about the media reaction, "when Trump did it," here's your opportunity to even the score. If this is truly the over-riding verdict of the liberal/mainstream media, it should be the simplest of tasks to provide supporting evidence that you are not simply making things up, on the fly.

 

Well, see it how you want. Saddam was talking "mother of all battles" and getting bombed before peace talks ended. After he invaded, he saw half the militaries on earth joining up to oust him, but he stayed. Whether Glaspie accidentally green lit this while the US and Gulf States were wargaming, he could have walked out of Kuwait instead of firing Scuds at Israel. He stayed in spite of a giant red light. I doubt he needed a green light to go in. We can disagree on Glaspie's effectiveness in conveying Bush's posture.

 

They are causing many of them. One of the first steps in that process is getting Israeli citizens elected to federal office in the US government. AIPAC smoothly facilitates that process.

 

911 happened because it was planned for years in advance. The design of the towers incorporated features to enable a nuclear event. Vigilant Guardian and others exercises facilitated the events of the day.

 

Trump killed the Iranian General that oversaw the proxy armies and planned and supplied the attacks on our regional alliance. Biden killed some proxy fighters and that's what they are for. To proxy die. The policy should be if Americans die then Iranians die too. They don't miss a few Syrians.

 

There are few times in history when one nation in the world has had so much power over others - had so much of a military advantage - that it dwarfed all others.

The 1980's would be one of those times .. the US being ridiculously big and bad by comparison to any other ... and that would be comparing to Russia or the bigger powers .. Iraq is not even a gnat on the backside of of an Elephant compared to Russia.

. Bluster is Bluster - Saddam had no technology with which to attack the US or defend from the US.. You are claiming he was Suicidal ..but his personality shows the exact opposite.

Regardless - this whole line is irrelevant to the page we are on at the moment .. or rather - the one I was attempting to get back on.

 

The Brooking institute is a left-wing think tank. Richard Nixon didn't want to blow up its safe because it was a centrist organization.

 

Nixon didn't like the Beatles or teenagers with long hair ("hippies"), either. If what was in the mind of someone who is widely acknowledged to be a disgraced criminal-- yes, by Moderates, by & large, too-- nearly 50 yrs ago, is your best argument that Brookings is liberal, I'm just going to end that dispute because it's clear to me that I've won.

But on to the MORE IMPORTANT challenge, which you didn't address although I spent a good part of my post talking about it. Since being able to show that any of your arguments are based on fact, not simply fabricated to support your point of view, is prerequisite to your being worth debating-- I wonder if there was some subconscious truth-telling behind your choice of Nixon, as the champion of your example, meant to support your own opinion-- I hope you are not planning on avoiding your chance to prove that there is any merit to your argument.

I will post examples supporting my own impressions of the MSM news coverage of two incidents in question-- Trump's missile attack on a vacated airfield and Biden's recent missile attack on Syrian militia-- shortly. Since you maintained that the media chorus all sang in unison for these two events, it seems anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with a reason for significant delay, on your part.

 

Why not compare Biden's raid to Trumps attack on Iranian terrorist leadership? We might question damage to an area and a group we can't examine for results. The result of Trump's missile attack was right out in the open for all the world to see and choose sides over.

 

The two analogous incidents are the ones I named. Perhaps I had been mistaken in assuming that was the comparison that you were, therefore, making. So I will take your correction, and that removes the need for you to produce an MSM news article of the political assassination, green-lighted by then-President Trump, since I don't disagree with your general characterization of that coverage, even if I think World War 3 was an exaggeration, on your part. In that case, I will revise my initial reply to say that, of course, the press response was different for those two events, because the acts, themselves, were so different. One was seen as merely asserting ourselves, against one of the same groups as has fired upon Americans. Need I point out to you that we have no proof of the Iranian military actually firing any ordnance at our troops, other than their one missile attack IN RESPONSE to our killing of their top General?

So it is comparing apples and Casaba melons, to try to extrapolate anything from the varying reactions to the two instances you have singled-out. As I said, the coverage of the Trump act that resembled Biden's recent military response, received relatively similar news coverage, though Trump got more of it, which seems a result of the greater backround noise of other big stories (the pandemic; vaccines; the new administration's confirmation hearings; and the recognition that, despite Trump's departure from office, a radical element of the Right has effectively taken over the Republican Party) occurring now, as opposed to at the simpler time, when Trump acted. As far as the objectively different ramifications of assassinating anyone in the military of another country, much less a top official, with which we are not at war, verses responding to active fighters in belligerent militia, I'll let this poster explain:

 

I know the difference between the two incidents and that was why I posted as I did. Don't worry too much about WW3, neither Iran or Biden is going to jeopardize the plan to lift the sanctions.

 

No fly zones were there to protect the Shia and the Kurds. You hinting that everybody was treated just as bad, is a joke.

 

There was nothing fundamentally wrong with what the Shia and the Kurds did. And you equate THEIR behavior to ISIS.
That really is just utterly nuts!

GWB utterly failed to deploy enough policing power that simply is required to govern a stable country.
I already did the math. He was off by 60%. And if you would compare it to an unstable nation like Israel, than he had to have more than double!

 

No such thing as a conspiracy with the Saddam - US relationship during the days of Saddam using WMD's.
The US was fully aware and sold the materials to make them, while other western nations build the labs to made WMD's.
The US simply outshines Iran with being the biggest sponsor of terrorism.

 

For sure, and America and Europe have helped arm China. Not with missiles and tanks
but with metals, precursor chemicals, silicon chip fabs, expatriate scientists, technology
exchange programs, student exchange programs and the like. From this China developed
its military. Something similar happened with Iraq. And for a while there was a great fear
that Iran would win the war against Iraq, and what then for America and its allies?

 

Iraq started the war against Iran, with the support of the US.
They always had that WMD thing going.

"Ah the ol' conspiracy trick.".... not happening.

 

If America wanted to go down the WMD rabbit hole it could have loaned Iraq an
Ohio Class submarine, complete with 24x8 nuclear warheads. And it could have
said Iraq 'stole it' should anyone ask.

 

You talk as if the Shia and Kurds were blood brothers and nothing could be further from the truth. The Shia militias were Iran based fighters, trained and supplied and directed by the Iranian power structure. The Kurds fought to have a homeland but........Turkey. They did not have common goals and were never an alliance.

 

Sure... like Iran "shot down" a drone. But the thing is,... it's a simple fact that the US sold massive amounts of raw materials to cook up WMD's, and it's a simple fact that other western countries help build WMD factories. It's something that was done, and it's not being denied. There is a 11,000 page report on it, made by the UN security council, saying WHO sold what. And the US even had a vote in 1988 if the genocide against the Kurds had to be condemned, and the sale of raw materials that were used for WMD's to be stopped... the bill got defeated and so the sale went on. The US is simply totally complicit in that genocide and the WMD war as a whole.

 

Im not talking about them being blood brothers. I'm talking about them being specifically targeted as a population, unlike the Sunnis, and those people are absolutely not to be considered as a bunch of ruthless terrorist like ISIS. And such a comparison was kind of being made, with a remark that there was a NEED to be ruthless and GWB should have known to be like that. There was no need, in the first place. I made my point that there simply were not enough police boots on the ground. Not enough by a massive margin of around 150,000 to 200,000 police officers/soldiers, when he entered the occupation with 180,000 soldiers. And as occupying power,.. it's YOUR responsibility to provide the security. The US failed utterly miserabel to do that. ISIS spawned inside Iraq, and than branched over to Syria. It's the fault of GWB / the US that it happened, due to a total lack of controle. Everything is related to it, from the millions and millions fleeing all over the place, to mostly Muslim nations, and say 1 million to Germany. And them NATO countries like Turkey and Germany not being amused to push that defense budget to 2% or over, since the US does nothing but causing trouble and a financial burden on them.

 

Yes, and the Americans sold chip fabs to China, and these chips found their way into
military hardware, including nuclear missiles. So if China invades Taiwan or nukes
America THE RIGHTEOUS MASSES WILL RISE IN ANGER AGAINST AMERICA.

 

Your reply has nothing to do with Iraq or Iran.