Now that his tail is between his legs and he is apparently backing down from a war with Iran IMPEACHMENT IS FRONT AND CENTER! What's next?

Just heard on TV that the Iranian attacks were more for propaganda than for doing any actual harm to Americans. Fishy. Scripted. Controlled. Sheesh. Another Reality Show Iran style? I dunno. It's all so phony and fake and corrupt. Used be you could tell the good guys from the bad. Now they're all bad. Go figger. Thank you for your reply SP and Happy Wednesday to thee! :)

My reading of history suggests that the distinction between "good" and "bad" in the realm of geopolitics has always been fuzzy to the point of near-meaninglessness.

You and I lived in a time where it seemed maybe that was changing (and, arguably, it has changed to an extent). But there has always been skulduggery and proxy wars and so forth in the background. Today, we are media saturated so we are much more aware of it, but it never really went away.

If we assume all pols lie all the time foreign and domestic perhaps we won't get caught up in distractions diversions intended to take our eye off the ball. What Iran did was very reserved contained specific. What dumb don did was impulsive erratic wackdadoole crazy to get us to forget that he is IMPEACHED IN THE HOUSE FOREVER MORE. He will continue on this track getting ever wackier. Dumb don is as dumb as they come and getting dumber wackier insaner crazier. Poor us. Woe is us. We need a DEUS EX MACHINA! Know where one is available? Thank you for your reply SP! :) Why Iran chose this path I do not know unless they were IN COLLUSION with Russia to go easy on dumb don. I have no idea. It's all very fishy. :(

Geopolitics is always a problematic business. It has two BIG problems:

1) Any given geopolitical entity is ALWAYS uncertain about the motives of every other entity. Over time, some motives of some actors seem pretty certain (e.g. It's unlikely Canada intends to invade the USA). But motives can change for a variety of reasons.

2) There are no police to call. If a geopolitical actor feels wronged, it can only get the "justice" or recompense it can muster through force or negotiation. That tends to make geopolitical actors jealous, exacting, suspicious, and a damn nuisance (and sometimes selfish and tyrannical...).

It may be that Iran launched missiles at the Iraqi air bases to foment more reprisals against Americans in the region. Or, it may have been a signal that they're really ticked off but don't want the situation to escalate any further. And, of course, even if the Iranian government declares what its intentions are, they may be lying.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply SP. So far it is Iran who is the adult and dumb don who is the hysterical infant. Things could change of course. I would not hold my breath however. :) This post was edited by RosieG at January 8, 2020 10:33 AM MST

"The Iranian strikes were more for propaganda than for doing any actual harm to Americans". A set up dog and pony show for effect. Alternate reality. Phony. Fake. Planned. Controlled. Mebbe. I dunno. Something VERY FISHY about the whole setup. Stinks.

They hit something they knew would not kill Americans. They hit a base that was not owned by Americans.  Someone backed down and it was not USA. Iran has the ability to hit whatever they want in their reach. They made a good decision not to attack US again. 

The problem is the Trump administration (and defenders of His Orangeness) has to answer a simple question: what was the justification for killing Soleimani?

If the basis of the argument is moral reasons ("he was a bad man"), then it needs to be explained exactly why he was bad, how his "badness" differs from other people we are not killing, and why the US didn't go through formal legal procedures to indict him for his badness.

If the basis of the argument is on strict geopolitical interest grounds, it has to be explained how the killing of Soleimani enhances American geopolitical interests. The Trump administration has failed to do this in any tangible way (stating without evidence "he was a bad man responsible for many American deaths" is not sufficient). Also, if Trump and his supporters are arguing on this basis, then they need to STFU about the actions of other geopolitical actors (e.g. the Saudis who crashed airplanes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center). If the only standard of conduct is whether or not it advances the geopolitical interests of the entity engaging in them, then "all's fair in love and war"

If the basis of the argument is WE are moral actors who are occasionally forced by THEM to behave an in amoral way because that's the reality of geopolitics, then it needs to be explained why in this particular instance it was absolutely necessary to violate the 6th Commandment ("Thou shall not kill/murder"). The reporting to date suggests the assassination of Soleimani was part of a list of options presented to President Trump, and it was denoted as an extreme and risky response to events in Iraq. Yet President Trump chose it anyway over other less-MurderDeathKill options, and no good rationale has been presented why this was necessary.

If the basis of the argument is "Four legs Republicans...GOOD, two legs F***ing Hadjis Democrats...BAD, well...those arguments are prima facie hypocritical and silly.

This post was edited by SaltyPebble at January 8, 2020 10:55 AM MST

Again your words....not mine. 

The man was a terrorist. According to Bush W, Obama and the UN (UN sanctioned him specifically).  He used proxies groups to attack and kill many people over years. He just orchstrated the attack on the US Embassy. He was there organizing the attack and planning to attack again. He attacked American soldiers....that makes him a fair and legitimate military target. 

So, you're OK then with Iran (or any other country) assassinating US military personnel in leaders because they've "orchestrated attacks", "planned attacks", "attacked soldiers" and the like in various US military actions over decades, which have killed millions of people and NONE of which were legitimate declared-by-Congress wars?

You're OK with Iran (or any other country) assassinating the military leaders of the nation-state of Israel because of the "terrorism" they have wrought on the Palestinian people, actions which have been denounced with resolutions many many times by the UN General Assembly (but quashed in the Security Council by the United States)?

I think we know the answer is "No."

In the absence of any argument about Soleimani that doesn't distill to he was a F***ing Hadji "bad man" and Americans/Israelis are not...because they are Americans/Israelis, not F***ing Hadjis "bad people," we can only conclude that's the argument being offered.

If that argument causes discomfort, than someone should provide a more sophisticated argument  than "Four legs US..GOOD! Two legs THEM...BAD!"

Our military Gen have not been sanctioned by UN for supporting terrorism activities. Our Gen have not murdered protesters in our own country by having the shot in the head. (Soleimani did this recently to 2000 Iranian citizens), our Gen dp not support terrorist groups finacially or training them etc. And IF one did do such things the rest of the world would not have to worry about killing him....we would do that ourselves. 

So lets compare apples to apples. Not apples to rotten oranges.

Re: "So lets compare apples to apples. Not apples to rotten oranges."

Yes, let us do so...

"Our military Gen have not been sanctioned by UN for supporting terrorism activities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

Our Gen have not murdered protesters in our own country by having the shot in the head. 

Nah, they farm that work out to other repressive regimes (Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile,
all the "black sites" where prisoners were tortured during the invasion/occupation of Iraq, etc.)

Or they do it via bombing, drone strikes, napalm, 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/death-from-below-in-the-world-s-most-bombed-country-1.3078351



our Gen dp not support terrorist groups finacially or training them etc. 


Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-school-of-the-americas-is-still-exporting-death-squads/204655/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

And IF one did do such things the rest of the world would not have to worry about killing him....we would do that ourselves. 

Curious, I don't recall there being any executions for the Iran-Contra affair, for arming the "moderate" Syrian rebels who became the core of ISIS, and on and on and on.

In fact, Ollie North, a military officer and one of the major architects of the plan to arm terrorist groups (via Iran) in order to fund the Contras (another terrorist group, by any consistent application of the term) is something of a cause celebre in right-wing US politics

Once again, your only argument as to why the assassination of General Soleiamani is morally justified boils down to "Four legs...GOOD! Two legs...BAD!"  (and I really hope you're getting that literary reference).

Perhaps you are not aware of the sordid realpolitik history of the United States (or Israel)? 

And one General did all you claim?  Or was it the gov policy? 

If any Gen of ours was in Iran or any foreign country actively organizing and planning to kill Iranian soldiers...Iran would then have the legitimate military target in that General.