RIH Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis

[jarnon]

I'm also posting the first RIH of the decade, and it's a twofer.

Iran's Soleimani and Iraq's Muhandis killed in air strike: militia spokesman

General Soleimani was the head of the dreaded Quds Force. Al-Muhandis was the head of the Kata'ib Hezbollah militia that's been fighting Iraqi government and coalition forces lately.

I'm scratching my head because:

• What was one of Iran's top military leaders doing in Baghdad?
• They were killed by an air attack that nobody has claimed credit for.

[jarnon]

OK, the Pentagon just took credit for it.

[a1mamacat]

well the rest of the world saw this coming.

Impeachment War. Distraction War.

Not saying Soleimani didn't deserve taking out, he did.

I hope all your military people stay safe.

[flockofseagulls104]

well the rest of the world saw this coming.

Impeachment War. Distraction War.

Not saying Soleimani didn't deserve taking out, he did.

I hope all your military people stay safe.

Let me be first. Bless your heart.

[Bob78164]

The world is undoubtedly better off without them. But Ben Rhodes put it pretty well:

Does anyone think Donald Trump is equipped to handle a complex, enduring, international crisis that could play out in many countries and demand expertise, rigorous process, and judicious decision-making?

Yet that is precisely the kind of crisis that Donny just escalated.

I don't know whether this will eventually play out to be good for the United States or bad for the United States. But I can make one prediction with a fair amount of confidence. It will play out in a way that's good for Russia. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

The world is undoubtedly better off without them. But Ben Rhodes put it pretty well:

Does anyone think Donald Trump is equipped to handle a complex, enduring, international crisis that could play out in many countries and demand expertise, rigorous process, and judicious decision-making?

Yet that is precisely the kind of crisis that Donny just escalated.

I don't know whether this will eventually play out to be good for the United States or bad for the United States. But I can make one prediction with a fair amount of confidence. It will play out in a way that's good for Russia. --Bob

If only we had some sort of agreement in place with Iran that would make mutual cooperation in both countries' best interests instead of playing an escalating game of who's got the biggest set of cojones....

Oh, wait.

[a1mamacat]

The other problem that is apparent, is that he lies so much about so many things, that your allies just don't believe his reasons for the strike, or his staff like Pompeo.

[flockofseagulls104]

The man took swift, decisive and measured action based on rock solid intelligence. Iran has been provoking us and our allies for years. What? We shouldn't have taken out the men who have been killing Americans and terrorizing the region for years because they might get mad at us?
Maybe we should send them billions of dollars in cash instead?

[Bob78164]

The man took swift, decisive and measured action based on rock solid intelligence. Iran has been provoking us and our allies for years. What? We shouldn't have taken out the men who have been killing Americans and terrorizing the region for years because they might get mad at us?
Maybe we should send them billions of dollars in cash instead?

What do you believe the "rock solid intelligence" told us? (And it's hard to describe killing the guy as a "measured" action. Would you believe an Iranian response of killing, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "measured"?) --Bob

[Bob Juch]

The man took swift, decisive and measured action based on rock solid intelligence. Iran has been provoking us and our allies for years. What? We shouldn't have taken out the men who have been killing Americans and terrorizing the region for years because they might get mad at us?
Maybe we should send them billions of dollars in cash instead?

What man? Certainly not trump. All he did was to okay what his commanders recommended.

I just saw that we did a repeat of the drone strike tonight to assassinate the remaining heads of the Iraqui militias. This will not turn out well.

[flockofseagulls104]

The man took swift, decisive and measured action based on rock solid intelligence. Iran has been provoking us and our allies for years. What? We shouldn't have taken out the men who have been killing Americans and terrorizing the region for years because they might get mad at us?
Maybe we should send them billions of dollars in cash instead?

What do you believe the "rock solid intelligence" told us? (And it's hard to describe killing the guy as a "measured" action. Would you believe an Iranian response of killing, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "measured"?) --Bob

It's futile to argue with you. I think it was a good thing. That's my opinion. We will see what happens now. I hope in the long run it leads to less conflict and less bloodshed.
I suspect, and you know, that way in the back of your mind you hope that it leads to bad things so it will serve to confirm yor hatred of trump. And I know, even if it leads to good things you will NEVER acknowledge that trump deserves any credit.

[Bob78164]

The man took swift, decisive and measured action based on rock solid intelligence. Iran has been provoking us and our allies for years. What? We shouldn't have taken out the men who have been killing Americans and terrorizing the region for years because they might get mad at us?
Maybe we should send them billions of dollars in cash instead?

What do you believe the "rock solid intelligence" told us? (And it's hard to describe killing the guy as a "measured" action. Would you believe an Iranian response of killing, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "measured"?) --Bob

It's futile to argue with you. I think it was a good thing. That's my opinion. We will see what happens now. I hope in the long run it leads to less conflict and less bloodshed.
I suspect, and you know, that way in the back of your mind you hope that it leads to bad things so it will serve to confirm yor hatred of trump. And I know, even if it leads to good things you will NEVER acknowledge that trump deserves any credit.

You're the one that said the decision was based on "rock solid intelligence." What do you think that "rock solid intelligence" told us? --Bob

[Bob Juch]

What do you believe the "rock solid intelligence" told us? (And it's hard to describe killing the guy as a "measured" action. Would you believe an Iranian response of killing, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was "measured"?) --Bob

It's futile to argue with you. I think it was a good thing. That's my opinion. We will see what happens now. I hope in the long run it leads to less conflict and less bloodshed.
I suspect, and you know, that way in the back of your mind you hope that it leads to bad things so it will serve to confirm yor hatred of trump. And I know, even if it leads to good things you will NEVER acknowledge that trump deserves any credit.

You're the one that said the decision was based on "rock solid intelligence." What do you think that "rock solid intelligence" told us? --Bob

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/03/mike-p ... i_partner/

[Bob78164]

It's futile to argue with you. I think it was a good thing. That's my opinion. We will see what happens now. I hope in the long run it leads to less conflict and less bloodshed.
I suspect, and you know, that way in the back of your mind you hope that it leads to bad things so it will serve to confirm yor hatred of trump. And I know, even if it leads to good things you will NEVER acknowledge that trump deserves any credit.

You're the one that said the decision was based on "rock solid intelligence." What do you think that "rock solid intelligence" told us? --Bob

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/03/mike-p ... i_partner/

Sounds like the "rock solid intelligence" is this Administration's equivalent of "Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are." We didn't because he didn't. --Bob

[jarnon]

Sounds like the "rock solid intelligence" is this Administration's equivalent of "Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are." We didn't because he didn't. --Bob

Soleimani's presence in Iraq, in the company of a militia that has been attacking Americans for weeks, is a serious provocation in itself. He wasn't killed at home like Bin Laden. And give U.S. intelligence credit for knowing exactly where he'd be and when, just like Bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're the one that said the decision was based on "rock solid intelligence." What do you think that "rock solid intelligence" told us? --Bob

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/03/mike-p ... i_partner/

Sounds like the "rock solid intelligence" is this Administration's equivalent of "Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are." We didn't because he didn't. --Bob

This is your batphone point you were trying to bait me with? Will you start chanting "no blood for oil" next?

[Bob78164]

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/03/mike-p ... i_partner/

Sounds like the "rock solid intelligence" is this Administration's equivalent of "Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are." We didn't because he didn't. --Bob

This is your batphone point you were trying to bait me with? Will you start chanting "no blood for oil" next?

I wasn't trying to bait you at all. What "rock solid intelligence" were you referring to? And how did you know it was "rock solid"? For someone who's as skeptical as you seem to be regarding traditional news sources, you're awfully credulous when it comes to pretty much anything Donny says. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Sounds like the "rock solid intelligence" is this Administration's equivalent of "Saddam has WMDs and we know where they are." We didn't because he didn't. --Bob

This is your batphone point you were trying to bait me with? Will you start chanting "no blood for oil" next?

I wasn't trying to bait you at all. What "rock solid intelligence" were you referring to? And how did you know it was "rock solid"? For someone who's as skeptical as you seem to be regarding traditional news sources, you're awfully credulous when it comes to pretty much anything Donny says. --Bob

Well, apparently the target was exactly where and when they expected him to be. They got their target and avoided any aspirin factories. Pretty rock solid to me. Are you implying they really wanted to strike an aspirin factory and got Soleimani instead? What is the batphone point you are trying to make?
You should not be pointing any fingers about credulity. You would blame a rainy day on trump and go on to say it's the worst rainy day in world history.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, apparently the target was exactly where and when they expected him to be. They got their target and avoided any aspirin factories.

Soleimani was a general in the Iranian army. He wasn't like Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders, trying to hide out. His movements were fairly open and easy for an intelligence service to track. Apparently both Bush and Obama had the capability of targeting him at any time had they chosen. They chose not to do so because the risk outweighed the benefit.

There was no "imminent threat." If there was some big attack planned by Iran, the way to stop it would be to get those carrying out, not Soleimani. The world is a better place with him gone. Unfortunately, we can't just go around killing every foreign military leader we don't like. Trump thinks his bluster will cow the Iranians. Look what it got him with Kim Jung Un. He's just painted a bullseye on the back of every US soldier in Iraq.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, apparently the target was exactly where and when they expected him to be. They got their target and avoided any aspirin factories.

Soleimani was a general in the Iranian army. He wasn't like Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders, trying to hide out. His movements were fairly open and easy for an intelligence service to track. Apparently both Bush and Obama had the capability of targeting him at any time had they chosen. They chose not to do so because the risk outweighed the benefit.

There was no "imminent threat." If there was some big attack planned by Iran, the way to stop it would be to get those carrying out, not Soleimani. The world is a better place with him gone. Unfortunately, we can't just go around killing every foreign military leader we don't like. Trump thinks his bluster will cow the Iranians. Look what it got him with Kim Jung Un. He's just painted a bullseye on the back of every US soldier in Iraq.

Thanks for your opinion. Or should I say your paraphrasing of the narrative of the left, which serves as your opinion.
Obama drew a red line in Syria, which he refused to act upon. If Obama had acted, you would have cheered. He didn't, and many more people have been killed in Syria by chemical weapons.
Maybe instead of "emboldening" ( a word you leftists like to use) terrorists, showing we will respond to their evil might disenbold them. Killing a general from a regime that proclaims "Death to America" and vows to wipe Israel off the face of the earth even after your 'treaty', giving them billlions in cash, attacking a neighboring country and endangering shipping seems to me a penalty for crossing a red line. Or perhaps we should just give them a few more billions of dollars.

[Bob78164]

This is your batphone point you were trying to bait me with? Will you start chanting "no blood for oil" next?

I wasn't trying to bait you at all. What "rock solid intelligence" were you referring to? And how did you know it was "rock solid"? For someone who's as skeptical as you seem to be regarding traditional news sources, you're awfully credulous when it comes to pretty much anything Donny says. --Bob

Well, apparently the target was exactly where and when they expected him to be. They got their target and avoided any aspirin factories. Pretty rock solid to me. Are you implying they really wanted to strike an aspirin factory and got Soleimani instead? What is the batphone point you are trying to make?
You should not be pointing any fingers about credulity. You would blame a rainy day on trump and go on to say it's the worst rainy day in world history.

I thought you might have been referring to the Administration's claims that the guy was an imminent threat.

But since you keep repeating the bullshit claim (or should I say, Foxphone claim) that the Obama gave Iran billions of dollars, it's quite clear that you really don't care about objective reality. Just your own preconceptions and whatever propaganda supports them. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I wasn't trying to bait you at all. What "rock solid intelligence" were you referring to? And how did you know it was "rock solid"? For someone who's as skeptical as you seem to be regarding traditional news sources, you're awfully credulous when it comes to pretty much anything Donny says. --Bob

Well, apparently the target was exactly where and when they expected him to be. They got their target and avoided any aspirin factories. Pretty rock solid to me. Are you implying they really wanted to strike an aspirin factory and got Soleimani instead? What is the batphone point you are trying to make?
You should not be pointing any fingers about credulity. You would blame a rainy day on trump and go on to say it's the worst rainy day in world history.

I thought you might have been referring to the Administration's claims that the guy was an imminent threat.

But since you keep repeating the bullshit claim (or should I say, Foxphone claim) that the Obama gave Iran billions of dollars, it's quite clear that you really don't care about objective reality. Just your own preconceptions and whatever propaganda supports them. --Bob

Bob, the fact is Obama DID send a shipment of cash to Iran, whether you agree with the reasons or not. He unilaterally negotiated a 'deal' with Iran which was never sent to congress for approval as a treaty. And STILL Iran's leaders called for death to America and the destruction of Israel and continued its sponsership of worldwide terrorism. Those, bob, are the facts.
Both Iran and North Korea could have both peace and prosperity if they want very easily by their leadership deciding they want peace and prosperity. But they don't. That is not anyone's fault but their own. It is not Trump's fault or the fault of the US.
That is the point I was making. And that is why it is futile to argue with you or any leftist. You can't focus.

[silverscreenselect]

That is the point I was making. And that is why it is futile to argue with you or any leftist. You can't focus.

No, Flock. You have trouble focusing because you fall in love every time Trump tweets. There's no question that North Korea and Iran could make things easier for themselves. Trump saw an opportunity to do what Bush and Obama wouldn't so he put on that entire useless dog and pony show that has left North Korea in a stronger diplomatic position than it was before. He took away what Obama did with nothing in its place and the results were predictable.

You seem to think that US options were limited to either doing nothing or killing Soleimani. The time to do something was after the original actions by Iran months ago. He could have launched the sort of retaliation that countries in the Middle East have used for years against some military target and Iran would have understood. Even this last time, the Pentagon laid out a number of options that were available for the US and Trump chose the most extreme. Not only that but he engages in typical Trumpian chest pounding about how he's got 52 targets in mind if the Iranians do strike back.

He's gotten what he wanted in one respect. There's been no talk about the impeachment proceedings this weekend.

[flockofseagulls104]

That is the point I was making. And that is why it is futile to argue with you or any leftist. You can't focus.

No, Flock. You have trouble focusing because you fall in love every time Trump tweets. There's no question that North Korea and Iran could make things easier for themselves. Trump saw an opportunity to do what Bush and Obama wouldn't so he put on that entire useless dog and pony show that has left North Korea in a stronger diplomatic position than it was before. He took away what Obama did with nothing in its place and the results were predictable.

You seem to think that US options were limited to either doing nothing or killing Soleimani. The time to do something was after the original actions by Iran months ago. He could have launched the sort of retaliation that countries in the Middle East have used for years against some military target and Iran would have understood. Even this last time, the Pentagon laid out a number of options that were available for the US and Trump chose the most extreme. Not only that but he engages in typical Trumpian chest pounding about how he's got 52 targets in mind if the Iranians do strike back.

He's gotten what he wanted in one respect. There's been no talk about the impeachment proceedings this weekend.

So you're in the pentagon now, huh? So trump chose the most extreme measure, huh? So this was done so the media would stop talking about impeachment, huh?
I tend to disagree with you. But thanks for your batphone report.

[jarnon]

The Iraqi parliament is voting to disinvite U.S. troops from Iraq. The Iraqi Shi'ites, the largest ethnic group is now firmly pro-Iran. There are 5,000 Americans soldiers in Iraq now, preventing a resurgence of Daesh. The semi-independent Kurds in northern Iraq may let some stay there, if Trump makes nice to them after abandoning their brethren in Syria. Otherwise the troops will have to relocate to Turkey or Kuwait.