Missile attacks target US forces in Iraq

[Gman]

That's not a belief that I carry, and it's as naive as most of the rest of the U.S. beliefs on the middle east. I wouldn't go so far as to say they (e.g. Saudi Arabian sect) are allied with Israel in the traditional sense, it is more from a political perspective of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" as the differences held between some of the ethnic groups of Muslims is in many ways, filled with far more vitriol than their differences with Jews. And Iran is never going to "wipe Israel off the map". There will be an ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran for probably decades into the future unless some sort of major upheaval happens, and there will be an occasional proxy war between Isreal and Hezbolla for years into the future, as Isreal has it's hands cuffed and can't resolve the underlying issue. Iran has free license to do this proxy bullshit because nobody really wants to start a declared war - with serious implications I'm not droning on about here.

But here's the thing....

Iran might supply a nuke to Hezbolla many years in the future. The only thing holding them back is plausible deniability. If they can achieve that, they'd be likely to do it. The issue with Iran is they have figured out asymmetric warfare to achieve their goals. They'll never declare war on Isreal; but that doesn't stop them from trying to kill a million of them. Even then; a lot of the statements (wipe Isreal off the map) are political ones for state media to appease their populace; the leadership has got a strong pulse on the real politics of the region and may not actually mean it. Someday Ayatolla will croak, and if his replacement is young and dumb, it could seriously destabilize a lot of things, and that may be the only situation that leads to a declared war.

An expert in law and the middle east. Everyone else that doesn't agree is naive. Is it possible to present your argument without having to label people that don't agree with you?

In my estimation, Israel will prevent Iran from getting a nuke if our leadership doesn't have the balls to do it. They've already made an example of Iraq and their nuclear ambitions.

I admit I got a chuckle when I read this;

Iraq is majority Shite, same as Iran.

Freudian slip, or did you really mean shite and not Shiite?

[FoxtArt]

An expert in law and the middle east. Everyone else that doesn't agree is naive. Is it possible to present your argument without having to label people that don't agree with you?

In my estimation, Israel will prevent Iran from getting a nuke if our leadership doesn't have the balls to do it. They've already made an example of Iraq and their nuclear ambitions.

I admit I got a chuckle when I read this;

Freudian slip, or did you really mean shite and not Shiite?

So you don't actually have much to say in disagreement, but want to insert a straw-man as per usual... Or are you actually arguing the majority of people in the U.S.A. are well informed on the middle east? I'm pretty sure a sizable portion doesn't even know how many states the U.S. has *cough* Obama *cough*, so that would be a compelling argument for you to make. Yet, ask anyone in the U.S. and it's hard to find anyone that doesn't have a strong, unbending opinion one way or another on middle east policy - as I tersely put it before. Nowhere do I proclaim to be an expert; but it is becoming apparent you can't handle differing opinions at all...

As far as Israel... they can and have bought time.They may yet again. That doesn't last forever. Israel can't "nuke" Iran simply for building one, nor can it go to war over it, nor is its abilities boundless.

[Gman]

Apparently you missed the point. Again. I certainly don't call people "naive" because they don't agree with me. You're diverting to the population of the country, but it was a position also held by a member of this forum. It's your opinion or your understanding, but you are not an authority on the subject.

Israel can destroy their infrastructure before they ever get a nuke. They've done it before and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. When nations threaten to wipe your people and nation off the map, and have ambitions to build a nuke to presumably use against you, you have to take them seriously.

[FoxtArt]

Apparently you missed the point. Again. I certainly don't call people "naive" because they don't agree with me. It's your opinion or your understanding, but you are not an authority on the subject.

Israel can destroy their infrastructure before they ever get a nuke. They've done it before and I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. When nations threaten to wipe your people and nation off the map, and have ambitions to build a nuke to presumably use against you, you have to take them seriously.

Oh, you're point must be lost in unnecessary exaggeration and baiting, and completely fails to make one.

... I was calling the "reflexive belief that is decades out of date" [e.g. all muslim nations rising against Isreal] that spqrzilla mentioned as naive, or in other words, general agreement with him.... (with my opinion only clarifying that it isn't traditional allied relations per se) and yes, that "everyone rises against Isreal" belief is naive; e.g. out of date and inexperienced. I'm not sure if anyone ever made such an argument here in support of it. Nowhere have I said people that disagree with me are naive. Saying that the majority (more than 50%) of U.S. citizens are almost entirely ignorant, e.g. naive on the matter shouldn't offend you, as many of them are on pretty much everything else that isn't pop culture.

And yet, it's incredibly rare to ask someone their opinion and get an answer "I honestly don't know..." or "I'm not sure..." or "I don't have enough information".

PS: You'll note my original post doesn't take a stance, other than e.g. "It may not have been wise... we will see".

[Gman]

My apologies. The wording in your response seemed contradictory. Apparently, I agree with both of you in that not all muslim nations will rise against Israel. The first nation that comes to mind is Egypt, with whom Israel has had a long standing treaty.

The Sunnis and Shiites also can't agree on much.

[FoxtArt]

My apologies. The wording in your response seemed contradictory. Apparently, I agree with both of you in that not all muslim nations will rise against Israel. The first nation that comes to mind is Egypt, with whom Israel has had a long standing treaty.

The Sunnis and Shiites also can't agree on much.

Agreed, they are also all shite, of course - and I see I could have phrased it better.

[Gman]

Interesting...

Protests Erupt in Iran after Military Admits Downing Ukrainian Passenger Jet: "Death to the Dictator"

Protesters in Iran are demanding that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei steps down, after the country's military admitted to accidentally downing a Ukrainian passenger jet, killing all 176 people on board.

Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 crashed shortly after leaving Imam Khomeini International Airport in the Iranian capital of Tehran on Wednesday. It came days after President Donald Trump ordered adrone strike in Iraq to kill Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, on January 3, escalating tensions between the countries.

On Saturday afternoon, thousands of people gathered in Tehran's main squares as meetings organized on social media to mourn the dead transformed into protests against the military's mistake, The New York Times reported. Chants in videos seen on social media by the newspaper included "Death to liars!", "Death to the dictator!" and "You have no shame."

An angry crowd in front of Amir Kabir university in the city appeared to chant "Commander-in-chief (Khamenei) resign, resign" in a video, according to Reuters. The news agency said it could not verify the authenticity of the video footage.

The semi-official Iranian Fars News Agency, which is linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, demanded those responsible be held accountable, and said the shortcomings of the country's leaders had made the "tragedy twice as bitter," according to The New York Times.

Earlier in the day, angry Iranians took to social media to ask why civilians had become the victims of their country's "harsh revenge," according to The New York Times. Following the death of the top military commander, Iranian officials pledged to exact vengeance against the U.S.. Last week, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promised harsh revenge against the "criminals" who killed Soleimani, Reuters reported. The Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi made a similar threat in an interview with CNN last week, as did Abdollah Araghi, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, on Thursday, The New York Times reported citing Iran's Tasnim news agency.

Freelance journalist Mojtaba Fathi tweeted, according to a translation: "They were supposed to take their harsh revenge against America, not the people."

Iran had initially denied reports that one if its missiles hit the aircraft. But on Thursday, U.S. officials told Newsweek they suspected that Iran's anti-aircraft systems had struck the Ukrainian flight, accidentally killing the passengers and crew on board. Of those killed, 82 were Iranian, 63 were Canadian and 11 were Ukrainian, 10 were Swedish, seven were Afghan, and three were German nationals.

On Saturday morning, Iran's military said, in a statement published by the official IRNA news agency that an investigation had revealed it had in fact downed the Ukrainian passenger jet "unintentionally, due to human error."

It explained its airforce defense units were on high alert after Soleimani's death. In "such a sensitive and critical situation" the Ukrainian aircraft had "moved very close to a sensitive military spot" belonging to Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The "altitude and the direction of the flight's movement were like an enemy target," the statement read.

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani tweeted on Saturday: "The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families. I offer my sincerest condolences."

[buffalobo]

Not sure how killing a war criminal is a bad thing. Those waging jihad against America will never stop trying to kill Americans. Don't see how it makes much difference if it pisses jihadis or their countrymen off or anybody else around the world for that matter.

There will always be another to take his place, hopefully with much less success and shorter career, cause never bad thing to eliminate a war criminal.

[FoxtArt]

Not sure how killing a war criminal is a bad thing. Those waging jihad against America will never stop trying to kill Americans. Don't see how it makes much difference if it pisses jihadis or their countrymen off or anybody else around the world for that matter.

There will always be another to take his place, hopefully with much less success and shorter career, cause never bad thing to eliminate a war criminal.

Why not openly assassinate Kim Jong Un then? Possibly no bigger humanitarian criminal alive. Or would the ramifications of that cause more problem then it's worth doing?

Alas.... same in the middle east. Such decisions should be always taken with consideration of the long term cause, effect, cost, and value. This decision might very well have cost us Iraq... but for what benefit? As you've said, there's always another to take their place, so strategically, it doesn't really benefit, other then inducing a fear of "we'll get you individually.... but only after 20+ years of screwing with us".

Future prediction: Trump announces a troop withdrawl from Iraq before the elections - or at least a committed plan in place to do so announced before the elections - taking credit and asserting it to be his idea. (it won't be).

[buffalobo]

I don't know that Un is a war criminal. Has he or his proxy repeatedly declared war against America? Killed or ordered killed Americans?

As to rest, meh, they have been a threat in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

No need for us to be "in Iraq" for any other reason than spying/intelligence.