"Oh, so you think Solemani was a good guy?"

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

Peter W. Singer @peterwsinger

A good test of whether to take a politician or pundit seriously or not today is if they play the lame card of “Oh, so you think Solemani was a good guy?”

A generation of us saw that nonsense in 2003 and hopefully learned from it.
Judge act by the cost/benefits,
like an adult.

8:30 AM - Jan 3, 2020

Sage advice and spot-on!

[kentuck]

1. He was a bad guy.

So was Saddam Hussein. Was it a good idea to kill him?

[marble falls]

44. No, it was not, but then we didn't make that decision. What happens when ...

another country 'drones' an American general, or Senator?

[sandensea]

77. +1

[el_bryanto]

2. We have a shortage of adults in the United States unfortunately. nt

[bdamomma]

112. What bothers me

is at one time we used diplomacy for these situations. Now with these thugs in the WH they just want to kill people. Sickening.

Fucking bullies, Putin must be so happy to see that a so-called American is killing the US from within.

[Chuuku Davis]

3. Bad guy

Planned the killing of many innocent Iraquis and Americans.
Glad he is dead.

[Dennis Donovan]

4. Yes, but will the blowback be worth it? Also, we had numerous opportunities before...

...ask yourself, "why now?"

[braddy]

6. We killed him as he arrived in Iraq to personally lead the attacks on our embassy that is burning

and under siege, at his command. We didn't just suddenly go find Soleimani in his office Iran and kill him for no reason.

[Dennis Donovan]

7. You signing up?

[braddy]

12. I did during Vietnam and again when we took on the Soviets in the mid 1980s, but the three times I

tried after 9/11 were all refused for age, I believe most combat arms troops are pleased as punch to take out this American killer and very effective terrorist leader.

[Dennis Donovan]

14. Thank you for your service

I would think one that's experienced war would be a bit more cautious about subsequent conflicts that others would have to fight.

[braddy]

18. Our people in combat arms are not having a sad over killing this monster who was murdering

Americans and trying to take our embassy.

[LanternWaste]

23. Who is arguing US servicemen are "having a sad?"

You appear to be the one one suggesting that in any way. I get it... a point no one has made to argue against.

Thankfully, it's mere guesswork to pretend we know what contemporary combat collectively troops think one way or the other... but I get why that pretense is used to better forward particular narratives.

[Dennis Donovan]

24. Sigh. This isn't only going to be, solely, a conventional war...

There will be fighting in Iraq (yet again) for sure. It's the other shit that Iran will likely do - shit they've had planned and has been in place for years, waiting for the time to pull the trigger. Expect cyber attacks on the power grid in the US (notoriously un-secured). Expect airliners to start blowing up over the Atlantic. Expect sleeper cells in the US to start targeting OUR politicians. All of these things are now on the table.

And, if you think the US can defeat Iran in a conventional ground war (ala Iraq, 2003), think again. Iran is no Saddam's Iraq.

[braddy]

31. That post has nothing to do with me, all that projecting is in your own mind.

[Dennis Donovan]

32. I'm sorry... you lost me.

Huh?

[braddy]

34. This entire trivial exchange is too chatty for me.

[Dennis Donovan]

38. Um, ok

[Bettie]

45. Apparently, to some

a discussion board isn't for discussing things!

[hadEnuf]

84. They will be returning to Discussionist soon anyway.

Time to launder their socks.

[RhodeIslandOne]

53. Translation: He doesn't care or want to think about it

Some people think smashing their head open with a hammer is a good way to fix a headache.

[ChiTownDenny]

68. STOP IT!

He's a veteran. And he's not the Commander in Chief.

[pangaia]

88. What does that have to do with the issue?

[ChiTownDenny]

105. If you need to ask that question

then I suggest you find a different OP to participate in. His experience matters in this discussion. No need for a bunch of people to pile up on him!

[tonedevil]

103. Now we start with the...

do you have warmonger credentials bullshit. I did not join the military and I don't think it is relevant do you want to tell me something about how I'm not adequate to hold an opinion about US military adventurism?

[ChiTownDenny]

106. Are you callng a member of this blog a warmonger?

Beyond the pale! I don't want to see a bunch of people piling up on the guy. I appreciate different perspectives and you shouldn't be threatened when someone has one that differs from yours.

[tonedevil]

108. I'm saying "he's a veteran"...

doesn't make someone's opinion regarding war and military operations any more valid than someone who isn't. Trying to silence people with "have you served?" isn't going to shut me up either.

[ChiTownDenny]

109. The only people asking who served

was one of the people piling up on the one who served.

[tonedevil]

110. Perhaps you didn't notice posts 68 and 70...

in this very thread. Check out the username it surprises me you didn't notice them.

[ChiTownDenny]

111. I have no idea what you're talking abiut.

[tonedevil]

115. Your posts give off such a lovely...

(gas)light. Not quite sure what happened with #68 although I have seen edited posts that don't show their edits before, but you weren't quite so fortunate with #70 it shows your edit history. Why would you perpetrate such a blatant lie?

[pangaia]

118. +++

[RhodeIslandOne]

104. I apparently care more about future veterans than others do

If that means a fig to you.

[ChiTownDenny]

107. You think so?

Carnac?

https://images.app.goo.gl/SNBfX6T3pYcZ6d2x5

[ChiTownDenny]

70. STOP IT!

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2020, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

He's a veteran. And he's not the Commander in Chief.

[Dennis Donovan]

72. My service is irrelevant - I oppose this action - clearly it's ridiculously planned n/t

[ChiTownDenny]

74. We don't know about the planning.

But on the surface, and ordered by Trump, yeah, ridiculously planned. The other side of the coin is that no one should shed a tear that Suleimani was assassinated.

(My hopes are that Iranians read Emptywheel. /s)

[pangaia]

86. Projecting?

[braddy]

98. Or attempting to mind read, it sure had nothing to do with me.

[pangaia]

99. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean...

[mahina]

64. Well if you're going to hit me with logic,

enough chitchat.

[Dennis Donovan]

65. .

[Marengo]

66. Oh, so we don't attempt to neutralize an element responsible for the deaths of American personnel...

Because other nut jobs might get mad? IMO, Soleimani should have been put down long ago. Oh, and take a look at my avatar before trying that “you signed up” shit.

[Dennis Donovan]

73. Oh...

Whatever. Thanks for your service...

[pangaia]

89. "Soleimani should have been put down long ago"

Oh, boy !

[atreides1]

56. On that note

That would explain why Iraqis and Afghans are just as pleased to take out US troops...when you consider all the civilian death that was caused by "collateral damage"!

We Americans seem to have a problem, in that we cannot admit that we would be doing the same thing the Iraqis and Afghans have done if the shoe was on the other foot...

And yes, I did serve from 1978-1991 and was deployed to Desert Storm, after volunteering!

[Ferrets are Cool]

60. Ding, Ding, Ding....funny how many seem to forget

how that would work if WE were being invaded.

[braddy]

61. You posted to the wrong person, no mention of "collateral damage" here.

[pangaia]

119. ++++++++++

[pangaia]

85. First time I have heard that expression, "combat arms troops ."

Of course, I was never in the military.

[braddy]

96. Inside the military there are differences, those who serve in combat arms units and elite units are

more conservative and warrior type, some areas of the military are basically civilian jobs, and then there are those in between. In non combat units some (hopefully few) of the people are just there for the pay and benefits and training that will serve them in civilian life, they sometimes aren't really ready to go into harm's way to defeat our nations enemies and remove threats.

[US4u2]

8. Part of dotard's re-election campaign, no doubt.

[wnylib]

102. Yes. Make himself a hero as defender of

American lives during an election year. Also, how could Americans think about impeachment trial and removal when the national security is at stake?

My response is that is exactly why he should be removed. Not competent to handle the complexities of international relations without harming Americans. He has put a target on the backs of all of us.

Trump created this situation, first with his retaliation for the death of an American contractor (mercenary). Other US mercenaries have died in Iraq. Why retaliate like this at this time? It provoked the violent demonstration at the US embassy, so he escalated it further with Suleimani's assassination.

Is there anyone else who benefits from this situation besides Trump if he pulls off the hero image?

[marble falls]

48. What happens when another nation decides to drone an American leader ...

for planning on killing many innocent uzi-zuzi-bek-istan-stan-stans?

[earthside]

76. Guilty American Generals

I agree.

So ... all the U.S. generals who participated in the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq are fair game?
Should David Petraeus be drone assassinated? How many innocent Iraqi deaths is he responsible for?

Americans are very incapable of putting themselves in anyone else's shoe and seeing things from their perspective.

Suleimani was a monster, but still an Iranian official in a sovereign nation Iraq and Trump ordered him killed -- sometimes the right thing to do is not the thing that brings bloody gratification.

[marble falls]

78. I don't know that Suleimani was a monster but the people of his nation thought ...

he was a patriot. One person's patriot is another person's monster.

But we are setting a precedent that murdering monsters/patriots from other countries is OK, including American monster/patriots.

What really got murdered is rule of law. And that is monstrous.

[RhodeIslandOne]

58. Vlad Putin is a bad guy

So what should we do with him?

[Blaukraut]

83. Exactly. He is responsible for destabilizing Europe and the US.

Which will essentially cost many lives, too. Maybe someone should give the order to take him out, too.

[lostnfound]

75. Too bad dumbo didn't do it in secret. Plausible deniability. Nt

[Mr. Ected]

5. Yeah, he was a devil, maybe THE devil

But WE are the devil to them. Truths can be relative. The manner in which America behaves under Republican rule truly paints us as the bad guys to much of the world.

[braddy]

9. "them" shouldn't have been in Iraq attacking us, Soleimani should have stayed in Iran.

[Dennis Donovan]

13. ...and "we" should've continued to pull embassy personnel out last week.

Why didn't we continue to do that if this new threat was so grave?

[braddy]

16. We don't need to surrender our embassies to Iran, instead we fought back, in Iraq, not Iran.

[Dennis Donovan]

21. That fails to answer the question - pulling civilians out is not a capitulation...

...or surrender of the embassy. Why did they stop getting civilians out when they knew that they were going to whack Soleimani?

[braddy]

25. Obviously they didn't see the need to, nor to demonstrate fear unnecessarily, I'm not interested in

fretting over when they will or won't relocate the secretaries and such.

[Dennis Donovan]

28. Obviously, that was a gigantic mistake...

...given the huge target on the embassy personnel now.

[braddy]

33. It isn't obvious to me, write them a letter on strategy and tactics.

[marble falls]

49. First explain what tactics were being used in this event.

[pangaia]

93. WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place!!!

And then of course there was the Sykes–Picot Agreement.

Oh yes, I almost forgot the Shah !

American military in Saudi Arabia.....

And it goes on and on



You better believe this had NOTHING whatsoever to do with poor old america under attack and we must go out and slay the evil dragons !!

Nothing at all...

This insane move by Pompeo and the rest of his religio/fascist fanatics is a disaster...


Why are so many americans so ignorant of history...? It's a crying shame..

[mountain grammy]

10. Trump's not a good guy.

[brush]

11. Depends on your perspective. He was a good guy and hero to Iranians...

and now Americans are at risk all over the world because of trump's unprovoked and deliberate assassination of him.

We are uncertain how, when and where it will come, but race for certain retaliation.

Thanks, trump, but this doesn't erase the impeachment stain.

[dware]

22. Unprovoked?

How is this unprovoked?

This guy was responsible for the killings of hundreds of Americans & Iraqis, countless attacks on American interests, and was in the process of planning more attacks on Americans.

One may argue that Trump is playing the wag the dog game, but in no way was this unprovoked.

[Dennis Donovan]

27. This could have been achieved covertly, giving the US plausible deniability

...thus avoiding a now-certain direct conflict.

[dware]

29. I fully agree,

this could have been done covertly, and the Iranians would have gotten the message while the US would have plausible deniability, but my post was directed at the person who said this was unprovoked.

[marble falls]

52. It could have been not done at all. Kim is more dangerous than that guy was ...

where's his drone. This droning looks especially like a tail wagging the dog.

[pangaia]

97. Pompeo, et all.

That's my take.

They WANT blowback..

trump is too dumb

[defacto7]

42. But it's about rRump getting grandstanding points.

You can't make a buck by denying it.

[Dennis Donovan]

54. No sarcasm needed - you hit the nail on the head. This isn't about taking a bad guy out...

...this is about Trump starting a war to wag the dog.

[defacto7]

63. You're right. No sarcasm necessary.

[Kurt V.]

113. Conflict is not certain. and this was a message so no need for deniablilty.

[brush]

30. Seriously? He was a general. What do you think generals do?

Should we be in the business of openly attacking generals of countries we aren't at war with—with undoubted certainty of retaliation?

Should other countries we aren't at war with target our generals?

[dware]

35. He was already at war with the US,

he was already responsible for hundreds of American deaths, and was in the process of planning more.

This was in no way unprovoked.

[brush]

39. You sound like Pompeo with repug talking points.

Why be so stupid to openly and brazenly kill this guy?

Come on. Open your eyes. This was done to distract from the impeachment and to insure his re-election—just what trump predicted Obama would do back in the day—talk about projection.

Of course O was smarter than that.

[dware]

43. You said this was an unprovoked attack,

while I have pointed out that this guy was responsible for hundreds of American deaths.

And quit with the innuendo's, that's ridiculous.

I agreed in an earlier post that we could have taken this guy out covertly, thereby giving the US plausible deniability and sending Iran a powerful message.

As far as the wag the dog scenario, that's probably true, but again, this was in no way unprovoked.

[brush]

51. Not being at war with Iran and killing a high Iranian official is by...

definition unprovoked. It's not like they fired a barrage of missiles at us and we retaliated.

We initiated the attack.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

41. I never heard of this guy

until this news came out. What deaths of Americans was he responsible for?

[dware]

47. Google is your friend.

He was responsible for hundreds of US service personnel deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, also attacks on American interests.

Look it up, it will open your eyes.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

55. that response is often what I get when I ask

questions like this. Are you sure that is the best you can do?

[Kurt V.]

114. +1

[pangaia]

95. Bush was responsible for the deaths of.......

There, see how that works???

[dware]

116. Of course he was,

never said otherwise, but, how does that change what I've said?

There, see how that works???

[Miguelito Loveless]

15. Every Dem statement I read last night started with the premise

"Well, he needed killing, but..."

We have lost the narrative to Trump and his warmongers.

[Dennis Donovan]

17. That was by design - most knew that the RW's first talking point on this would be the old canard...

"So, you think he was a good guy and shouldn't have been killed?"

[Miguelito Loveless]

20. They have ceded the high ground to the GOP as soon as they opened their mouth

The GOP (and their base) don't do nuance.

[Cosmocat]

37. Correct - he was a GD OFFICIAL of the Iranian government, and a HIGH one at that

We just broke the "rules" of the game that even Iran has played by to this point.

The stupid in this country is boundless at this point.

We just opened up pandoras box.

[defacto7]

46. I agree.

[malaise]

19. Who put the United States in charge of who iives and who dies

or who is and is not a terrorist?

Want bad guys - go find the murderers of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war and occupation. I'm sick of this shit and refuse to entertain this madness. Get the fuck out of Iraq.

[Happy Hoosier]

80. With all due respect...

All nations make those decisions. It's what nation states do, for good and ill...

Having said that. Trump is an asshole and this attack needlessly escalates the tensions in the region. It will very likely result in further death and destruction.

[Heartstrings]

101. I agree, Malaise!

What gives us the right to “police” the entire world???

[Salviati]

26. "No, 1 thought we were... "

That's the answer for why we don't do terrible things to bad people

[IronLionZion]

36. These people think Trump and Putin are good guys

there are folks out there who might think Americans are bad guys who launch drone strikes in their countries. We wouldn't want foreigners to kill Americans even if they believe it's justified.

If an American uniformed military commander was considered a "bad guy" to some other country, and they killed him in a drone strike while he was driving to an airport in Canada, we wouldn't respond with "oh you think he was a good guy?".

[panfluteman]

40. So, a Regime Change War in Iran Would Accomplish Many Things for Trump:

1) It would distract from impeachment.
2) It would buy the silence of John Bolton in the impeachment hearings by giving him what he always wanted - a regime change war with Iran.
3) It would give the evangelicals what they have always wanted: an end times Armageddon, and ensure their continued support for him as the most godless, immoral and corrupt president in US history.
4) The nation would rally behind him in his war effort, and he could very well ride that wave to victory in the 2020 election.

And any one of those things would be worth the cost / benefit analysis for Trump. After all, when it comes to the cost, he's using other people's money - taxpayer dollars to fund it, and not a dime of his own money. And when it comes to the many American lives that would be lost, heck, that doesn't count one iota for a sociopath like Trump, who is totally devoid of empathy and compassion. That war with Iran could wind up accomplishing all four objectives would make it a no brainer in Trump's opinion. Whether Soleimani was good or bad is totally beside the point. He was simply a useful target in starting the war he needed.

[defacto7]

50. Alas, you may be right.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

81. There will be no "Regime Change War" in Iran

There is no way that that seriously happens IMHO, especially if you believe that Iraq- which was even more degraded and in worse shape- was a mess for us.

[SweetieD]

57. Doesn't matter if he was a bad guy. There are a lot of bad guys out there. You don't

Drop bombs on all of them.

[Ferrets are Cool]

59. Most didn't learn or won't learn from 2003.

Or maybe the word is "many". Seems as though it's like everything else. It comes down to whether you have a D or an R behind your name.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. In an alternate universe, Saddam takes out Solemani or Solemani takes out Saddam...

...or they take out each other at the same damn time.

Probably wouldn’t make the situation over there any more stable or less bloody, but at least our hands would be clean in the process.

[stonecutter357]

67. Donald Trump is a racist pig !

[jalan48]

69. Supplying the world with armaments and regime change seems to be our thing.

[modrepub]

71. Right or Wrong, Go Fill Up Your Gas Tank

because prices are going to go up. Bank on that.

[Dennis Donovan]

87. ...and take spending money out of the bank, if no cash on hand

Not saying to empty your bank acct, just grab enough in case ATM's are disabled. Travelex has already been cyber-attacked:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142414320

...other attacks could affect banking services like ATM's, etc.

[Happy Hoosier]

79. Soooo true.

I think Putin and Kim are terrible people too. I don't think killing them would be a smart geopolitical move.

Make no mistake. A targeted strike on this dude pretty much opens the door to targeted assassinations on all our brass and diplomats.

[SCVDem]

82. Trump is a paid assasin.

He works for Russia.

Release the taxes and we will all see he used our military to put out a hit!

If America is no longer a nation of law, then we are a Third World Dictatorship, losing our rights to vote and have a Representative government.

Soon it will be martial law.

AUMF does not apply forever and we have not declared war on anyone.

Trump IS the puppet!

[NoMoreRepugs]

90. Plenty of bravado and short memories here. Trillions of dollars

and 40k+ dead and wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan based on manufactured evidence. Creating catastrophic problems is not in the best interests of the country.

[calimary]

91. That's a one-liner that can be expected from pugnacious trumpers everywhere.

The kind of supporter who’s all “Rah! Rah! Rah!” for war while sitting in his easy chair enjoying a few beers in front of the TV. While OTHERS go out to fight, putting their lives on the line and in great - and VERY real - physical danger.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

92. If citizens shouldn't question how their government takes or spends lives, ask yourself if ...

If your take is that citizens shouldn’t question how their government takes or spends lives, ask yourself if you’re in the right country.

Link to tweet

TwoArticleHat Retweeted

An extremely rare First Amendment lawyer invocation of the fire-in-a-crowded-theater trope.

Link to tweet

This is an irresponsible statement issued by
@JoeBiden
. He has right to continue his ill-fated efforts to debate
@realDonaldTrump
for political power. While US personnel are abroad, he has no right to shout fire in a crowded theatre when he is uninformed by his own admission.

Link to tweet

My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani.

Link to tweet

[Dennis Donovan]

94. You'd better watch what you say" - Air Fleischer

Everything old is new again...

[Wednesdays]

100. The New Nazis learned well from their Masters

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Skittles]

117. there are still DUers who think we went into Iraq to go after a dictator

seriously naive