Iran/US conflict

[Mr Quatro]

I know that Iran is jealous of SA black rock in Mecca ... so I was wondering if it is a worship symbol

Mean while Trump may be on the wrong path of threatening Iran with his tweet Saturday.

In a tweet Saturday night, Trump said that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, the United States has targeted 52 Iranian sites -- a reference to the number of Americans taken hostage in the 1979 revolution -- "some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture,"

Now wouldn't that be a hoot if he did that and got impeached for it

Trump's threatened attack on Iranian cultural sites could be a war crime if carried out

https://www.cbs46.com/trump-s-threat...7b6b743cc.html

After an al-Qaeda affiliated group destroyed ancient religious monuments in Timbuktu, Mali, in 2012, the International Criminal Court took on a unique criminal case: prosecuting cultural destruction.

Though it generally focuses on human rights violations, the ICC charged the leader of the jihadist group, Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, with a war crime for destroying cultural artifacts in Timbuktu.

The case was the first criminal charge of its kind. It "breaks new ground for the protection of humanity's shared cultural heritage and values," UNESCO Secretary-General Irina Bokova said at the time. Al-Mahdi eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years in prison.

[Jimbuna]

[ET2SN]

Um, Jim.
Bolton's gone.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

To the best of my knowledge it is a rounfabout in the centre of Engelab Square but I'm not sure if the blue round shaped sphere is a monument or something similar.

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins

73! HE GOT A POSTUMOUS PROMOTION TO LT. GENERAL! RANK HATH IT'S PRIVILEGES BBY!

Originally Posted by LIEBERMAN-W.S.J.EDITORIAL

President Trump’s order to take out Qasem Soleimani was morally, constitutionally and strategically correct. It deserves more bipartisan support than the begrudging or negative reactions it has received thus far from my fellow Democrats.
The president’s decision was bold and unconventional. It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it. But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans. That divided response suggests the partisanship that has infected and disabled so much of U.S. domestic policy now also determines our elected leaders’ responses to major foreign-policy events and national-security issues, even the killing of a man responsible for murdering hundreds of Americans and planning to kill thousands more.
After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”
In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.
No American can dispute that Soleimani created, supported and directed a network of terrorist organizations that spread havoc in the Middle East. In Syria he made it possible for the Assad regime to respond with brutality to its own people’s demands for freedom. More than 500,000 Syrians have died since 2011 and millions more have been displaced from their homes.
During the Iraq war, Soleimani oversaw three camps in Iran where his elite Quds Force trained and equipped Iraqi militias. According to the U.S. government, these fighters have killed more than 600 American soldiers since 2003. In another time, this would have been a just cause for an American war against Iran, and certainly for trying to eliminate Soleimani. Within Iran, the Quds Force has worked with the supreme leader to suppress freedom and economic opportunity, jail dissident politicians and journalists, and kill protesters in the streets.
From the perspective of American values and interests, it’s impossible to mourn the death of such a man, and Democrats haven’t. Their response thus far has been “Yes, but . . .,” adding worries that Soleimani’s death will provoke a violent response from Iran. Democrats have also suggested that the Trump administration has no coherent strategy toward Iran or that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have acted without notice to and permission from Congress.
Yet if we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively. Some Democrats have said that killing Soleimani will lead us into war with Iran. In fact, Soleimani and the Quds Force have been at war with the U.S. for years. It is more likely that his death will diminish the chances of a wider conflict because the demonstration of our willingness to kill him will give Iranian leaders (and probably others like Kim Jong Un ) much to fear.
Some Democrats have also refused to appreciate Soleimani’s elimination because they say it isn’t part of an overall strategy for the region. But based on the public record, there is a strategy, beginning with the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, the shift to maximum economic pressure, and now adding a demonstrated willingness to respond with military force to Iran’s provocations. The goal is to bring the Iranian government back into negotiations to end its nuclear weapons program and rejoin the world’s economy.
The claim by some Democrats that Mr. Trump had no authority to order this attack without congressional approval is constitutionally untenable and practically senseless. Authority to act quickly to eliminate a threat to the U.S. is inherent in the powers granted to the president by the Constitution. It defies common sense to argue that the president must notify Congress or begin a formal process of authorization before acting on an imminent threat. C'MON HE TWEETED HIS INTENTIONS!
On many occasions President Obama sensibly ordered drone strikes on dangerous terrorist leaders, including U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. He did so without specific congressional authorization, and without significant Democratic opposition. Mr. Obama also “brought justice” to Osama bin Laden without prior, explicit congressional approval.
It is possible that anti-Trump partisanship isn’t behind Democrats’ reluctance to say they’re glad Soleimani is dead. It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is. If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November. That’s one more reason Democrats should leave partisan politics at “the water’s edge” and, whatever their opinion of President Trump on other matters, stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.

AS WITH ROBERT E. LEE UPON HEARING OF LT. GEN STONEWALL JACKSON(FATALLY WOUNDED) AT CHANCELLORSVILLE: "GENERAL (STONEWALL) JACKSON HAS LOST HIS LEFT ARM; I HAVE LOST MY RIGHT", AYATOLLAH ALI KAHMENEI HAS LOST HIS RIGHT HAND....THE LT. GENERAL HAS LOST HIS LEFT AND WILL NOT BE SO HANDY WITH THE VIRGINS IN PARADISE....

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

Um, Jim.
Bolton's gone.

Yeah, old image for the source I presume.

[Skybird]

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will - with a fuming lil' boy leading the column, but they will pull out.



If they would not, techcially international law would turn their status into that of occupiers then.



Open lanes, streets and roads for Iran then. They want Iraq.



When will it ever be learned? When you embark on the path of military violence, you have to walk all the way, with all determination and until the very end. If they really would pull out, sanctions yes or not - Suleimani then would see the completing of his mssion from his grave - kicking the Americans out. That was his strategic mission in Iraq.



Looks as is they turn it into another military mission that they politically turn into another failure once again. Is there a medal to be won for a record in doing this? Suffer five strategic defeats and win a golden coin with a ribbon on it? Have they really thought they could take out the Al Quds mastermind and strategic architect of terror in the region, leave it to that, and win that way? I mean killing Suleimani always could have been the first step only!


Persia is the origin of chess, btw. A game nobody seems to play in Washington - but that they play in Moscow, Bejing, and Teheran. Chess, German: Schach, from Persian: Shah: king.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will - with a fuming lil' boy leading the column, but they will pull out.

Latest news is that a one star general wrote that letter and a four star general said that it was a mistake ... which part was a mistake has not yet surfaced.

The letter itself probably

[mapuc]

Some minutes ago I saw an issue on CNN where some sources inside US-military saying they are not planning on leaving.
Despite some note saying they are.

First of all this request or demand by the Iraqi government has to be sent to the US-government(I guess this is the correct way)

Their military is unwanted.

The same goes to other countries government.

Next question comes first after such a request or demand.

What will happened if US and its allied refuse ?
What will happened if the US and its allied withdraw its forces from Iraq ?

Markus

[Skybird]

Yes, seems to have been accident, however: a good commander plans ahead for all imaginable eventualities. One can safely assume that internally they indeed update altready existing plans for a possible pulling out. The mistake that seems to have happened is not that they update these plans, but that it became known.



Idf Iraq demands it, I think even the Ameinas sooner or later will leave. Lil' Boy will be fuming, and fire his sanctions. But whom in the region does he want to scare with sanciton anyway? Lifde in Iraq is miserable. Sanction will not make it worse for the people. It already IS worse.



The Europeans will leave for sure, if it is demanded. Moralists that they are they will not violate internationa law. If they stay while being demanded to leave, they become occupiers, so do the US troops. Bad propaganda, lousy PR, a free round for Iran again.

[mapuc]

Earlier this evening I saw in a link the headlines.

Iranian navy have no chance against USA.

This made me remember what an Iranian said to us, when I was studying to Industrial electricians in the beginning of the 90's

We discussed the Iraqi war(the first one)and what would happened if Iran joined forces with Iraq.

He said.
(from my memory)

"We may be beaten, our navy may be destroyed our airforce may be destroyed..the only thing we have to do is to sink or damage one of their carrier severe.
Thereafter we await the press and the people's reaction in USA"

Same thought I got then same thought popped up today.

What would happen in the American society if such a thing should happen
(a war breaks out and one of US-navy's carrier are damaged severe or sunk)?

I guess you answer will be
Will never happen or there will not be a war between USA and Iran.

Markus

[Skybird]

Western societies are vulnerable to mounting own losses, also their war index is low, means they find it harder to replace losses in young male fighters, because their women have less babies.

However I serously wonder how Iran would manage to sink or cripple a US carrier. It would need enorous assiahgcne by Chinese military and Chinese weaponry, and an intel-related effort that I thibk is beyond their reach.

US war index was 0.96 in 2018, and around 2.00 in the 70s.

Iran's war index in 2018 was 1.75, at the time they had their big war against Saddam's Iraq, it was around 4.3x. . They would not find a high-loss war like against Iraq as easy to digest anymore as back then, still they have bigger spiritual resistance in this regard. American mothers have less babies than Iranian ones.



Also, the war index is abot the ratio of young males versus old males. The morew young ones, the more aggressive, expansionistic energy a nation projects. Call it youth dynamics. Old people are too tired to want to fight battles and erect empires.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...-the-war-index

That foreign power's wars in this region go so badly, has a lot to do with this ^. It foucsses on Afghanistan, nevertheless it illusatrate why you must take this data into account when considering Iran as well.

When American troops went into battle in 2001, Afghanistan’s war index was higher than ever. No matter how many smart bombs America and NATO dropped, Afghan forces grew stronger. The West was still not aware it was battling demographics. With an average of seven to eight children being born to each woman, Afghan insurgents could easily replace their losses.
So President Trump has good reason to feel uneasy about Afghanistan. Today Afghanistan’s pool of warriors numbers above 5 million; the country’s war index is almost 6.0.
This means the American military faces a difficult struggle in a still-volatile country. When a nation’s war index exceeds 3.0 (i.e. when there are 3,000 or more teens for every 1,000 older men) some form of violence becomes likely.
(...)
the hard reality is this: If the struggle in Afghanistan continues, in 13 years the pool of Afghan warriors will have jumped, since 2001, from 2.7 to 7.3 million men, and its war index of 4.24 will still be four times higher than in the US. If politicians push their armed forces toward combat, military leaders should first focus on the enemy’s war index. Where the index is 3.0 or higher, generals should think twice about intervening. If intervention cannot be avoided, military leaders should remember the expensive lessons learned by the Russians and the West alike: Planes, tanks, and troops have a limited impact when aggression is being driven by demographics.

I quote this not to distract from Iran to Afghanistan, but because there is a general lesson to be elarned form it, that by tendency is valid regarding Iran as well.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pentagon tells Iraq that US troops in coming days and weeks are relocating in preparation for a possible pulling out. It seems if Iraqi government tells them to leave, they will

SO, I read this parliament vote was just 3 votes more than the quorum. I'm guessing the votes were all Shiites?

Doesn't sound like the mandate the press is reporting.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be sad this one guy is dead. From what I understand, he was murdering scum.

[Skybird]

https://translate.google.de/translat...chungsmanoever


Written in autumn 2016. The author is a retired German ministerial director, was head of the planning staff in the Federal Ministry of Defense from 1982 to 1988. He is seen as one of the leading experts for nuclear security risks and was awared German, French and American decorations and medals in recognition of his expertise and service.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_R%C3%BChle


He also says in a more recent article that the socalled nculear deal never had a chance to accheive the claimed goal of banning Iran for 10-15 years from getting nuclear weapons. The article is locked and payware, unfortunately, so i cannot link and translate it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be sad this one guy is dead. From what I understand, he was murdering scum.

They call him the architect of the modern terror structure in the ME. That description is more precise, and correct. The blood of hundreds if not thousands drips off his hands. And he waged active war, year after year after year.



This was not just any general in a foreign country's army. He shoudl have ended up in the The Haguem, but unfortunately the Hague never rules for the gallow.


It irks me that Western media report about the hysteric funeral as if it were a state burial we should be concerned of and should pay tribute for. He was one of our most lethal enemies, and he has killed so many of us (Westerners and Israeli) . Eat and drink and celebrate life, I say!