America has No Allies in a War with Iran!

Just because we designate a country and its military a terrorist group, don't make it so. Evidence, evidence, evidence. What evidence supports the theory that Soleimani's actions, posed an imminent, or an immediate threat to the lives of our troops? Simply calling someone a terrorist, doesn't give anyone the license to kill them. Let alone a country that stands for Freedom, and Justice for All. The we-they demonizing mentality, is a place where rational thinking adults never want to go. At this level of hive mentality, there is no room for impartial judgement. Even the facts are replaced with self-serving soundbites. Countries and States wage wars. Terrorists commit crimes.

NO! This was a Protest, and not an act of war. Trump designating a member of the Iranian army(and other officials) as a terrorist, and killing him(and eight Iraqi's), is an act of war. If members of the Iraqi, or Iranian military had attacked the American Embassy, then it would be an act of war. But these were civilians protesting the 25 militia(and civilians) killed by the US rocket attacks in their country. Should they go to the embassy and thank the US for killing their citizens? Do you know what the practice of making accusations of subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence is called? McCarthyism.

The 52 hostages were taken by a Muslim student group, called "the Muslim Student Followers of the Imams(Khomeini) Line". Again the Embassy was not attacked by the military. Thus, not an act of war.

This doesn't make any logical sense. In case your definition of war is different than mine, can you give me an example of any country that is at WAR with us, but we are not with them? My understanding of "war", is that it must be between nations or states, and that it must be declared. Terrorism is an unlawful act to coerce change, through intimidation and violence. Terrorism is not a country, or a state.

So, is America's new role in the world, to search-out and to destroy anyone they believe is a terrorist. As long as we say a person, an army, or an entire country is a terrorist, we are justified in destroying them all? No trial, no due process, no oversight, no consequences, and no rule of law. It doesn't matter who Soleimani was, or what his job was. All that matters is, what is the evidence to support the theory, that his direct actions, would have put our troops in imminent and immediate harm. And, that his death has eliminated this threat. We just killed Saddam Hussein because he was a bad man, once the WMD lies failed. We were going to protect the oil, no matter what. We are now doing the same in Iran. We will keep murdering more people, until we get the war we want. But be careful what you wish for.

Does anyone with more than 3 working brain cells, think that Iran will not respond? It has the 13th most powerful military in the world. It has the largest military in the ME(no wonder SA and Israel wants them gone). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran . No ally will support this war that Trump has now started. He has now made our country much less secure. He is now the laughing stock of the world, and is behaving like a spoilt brat. He abandoned the nuclear deal with Iran, because he wants a war. He reimposed sanctions on Iran, because he wants a war. He raised the bar when Iran tried to negotiate having the sanctions lifted, because he wants a war. He allowed the bombing of Iranian bases in Iraq, and the killing civilians, because he wants a war. He ordered the cowardly killing of an Iranian general(Soleimani) in Iraq, because he wants a war, and the approval of his pimps. He has lied, accused, and manufactured evidence against Iran, because he wants a war.

Does anyone think that Iran will be short of allies? The entire Arab nation will support Iran, thanks to the US hatred Trump has fermented. Do you think that Russia, China, Pakistan, and Turkey won't offer their assistance? Or, are you just willing to take that chance? There is no doubt that Trump has committed an act of war. He has violated Domestic law(must first seek Congressional approval), and International law(must seek approval from the United Nations Security Council). In a civilized world, there is no room for a mindless narcissistic sociopath, using drones and missiles to kill people he thinks is a threat to US sovereignty. If Iran does nothing, Trump will continue killing, blockading, and sanctioning them, until they have no choice but to respond. By that time, the world will see Trump for the madman that he is, and rally their support behind Iran. So, let's just hope that our military, is willing to fight the entire world that hates America's guts. And, to keep corporate America afloat.

Trump stated to his senior staff, why don't we just take the oil? Now we have US troops guarding and patrolling Syrian oil fields. Trump was also told, that all Presidents have been re-elected, whenever war is raged during their administration. Do you think, that this might have some influence on his judgement? I just don't see how anyone can support anyone who makes fun of the handicap, thinks that planes can be invisible, thinks that national forests are racked, makes 13,435 false or misleading claims, shuts down our government for over a month, claimed that Obama was not born in America, and openly spreads bigotry, racism, and promotes religious intolerance. If he wasn't born with daddy's money, he wouldn't have a friend in the world. And, when Trump is out of office, the circuit courts of NY is waiting, to help Trump develop new friendships. https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/atrocities-1-to-111

 

Soleimanni has been front and center of the most totalitarian regimes I'm the world. His work in slaughtering peaceful protesters in his Homeland is more than sufficient reason to take his ass out

 

What war?

Who in the Trump administration said anything about war?

 

The US removed an elected president and replaced him with a ruthless dictator.

 

Tell the circuit court of New York to take a number and get a cup of coffee because it's at least a 5 year wait.

 

Only after Iran seized American assets.

And I work with a woman from Iran. She’s 58, so she was young when her family left in 1979. But she said most Iranians lived the Shah. It was safer and better than life in Iran today.

 

What American assets? This was a British problem. UK's Winston Churchill couldn't convince Truman to help overthrow Iran's democratically elected President until Eisenhower came to office, who then obliged Churchill.

 

He slaughtered peaceful protestors in his own country? When?

 

You have this backwards.

 

Worked out great. N. Korea hasn't nuked or invaded anyone yet. Can't say the same for US/Western nations.

 

Make it even more difficult for the U.S./Western powers to continue their globalist-imperialist agenda...which is what Iran's been doing in several nations that they've been assisting.

 

What 'terrorist factions'?

 

They don't give a damn about us either...and want to be left alone. The Persian empire was a vast, advanced civilization when Europeans were still eating bugs. But we can't seem to stop meddling in their affairs.

I'd like to see how America would've turned out as a country compared to modern Iran if, like Iran, they never invaded & plundered other nations to enrich themselves.

 

For 'show only'. That's a good one.

I guess using NATO countries to build our bases, to help with intelligence, and to launch all our military operations from is for show only.

 

Last month wasn't it?

 

Iranians at the top level of their government have been shouting "death to America" since 1979. They've taken hostages from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, destroyed our embassy in Baghdad, and killed thousands of Americans.

There are no protests in America demanding death to Iran. We don't give a sh-t about them, except when they kill us, or threaten Israel with complete annihilation.

 

Nonsense. Compared to the peoe

Mossadeq would have been ad thoroughly hated by the same people that hated the Shah and for exactly the same reason he wanted to bring Iran into the 20th century, the Shah implemented everyone of Mossadeq's reforms and made himself a target of the religious radicals. The only one of those reforms the current government kept was nationalizing the oil.

 

Hezzbollah for openers.

 

When he was running the revolutionary guard. A term that when applied to that bunch of religious bigots must have K. Marx spinning in his grave.

 

What is your basis for claiming the Iranian General was responsible for any protestors dying? Wasn't he in Iraq during that time anyway?

We're also in the dark about how many actually died. Obviously, the U.S. administration has no credibility...so they're no help.

 

They're called 'terrorists' by the West...but are considered 'heroes' by the Lebanese & other Muslim nations.

Now, judging that its function is to resist Western & Israeli expansion throughout the Middle East, is it any wonder that Soleimani would want to work with & support Hezbollah...while at the same time fighting ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban groups that were established/supported/funded/weaponized by the West?

The Nazi's called the French Resistance 'terrorists' too. So...sorry, but the labeling of Hezbollah as a 'terrorist' group doesn't wash here.

 

Perhaps there's a need to administer a candidate aptitude test.

 

The ones who call them heroes would be your moderate Muslims then? The peace loving guys who can be trusted?

 

Yeah, we haven't finished the ones we started eighteen years ago.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced Monday that his chief of staff Eric Chewning was quitting.

Because of the tensions caused by Trump's decision to take out an Iranian general, the second most powerful man in Iran and, as we are learning, a very popular general, B-52's are being deployed to the region along with over 3,000 additional troops.

When a commander is planning an operation, he must consider what he might gain as opposed to what he might lose. Essentially, he must consider the consequences of such action, meaning what will the enemy do.

In this case, that Iran will retaliate is not a question, but a reality. Also, one likely scenario is a long, dragged out asymmetric was with Iran during which Iran will use its proxy forces, not its military, while the U.S. is forced to use its military forces with a supply line that extends half way around the planet and on the enemy's turf. That is not an encouraging military scenario.

The commander must also consider what will be accomplished if the mission is successful. In this case, supposedly the general was planning a "imminent and sinister" attack on Americans, or so Trump says. He hasn't explained that part yet to the American people. Will the general's death cause the "imminent plan" to be abandoned, or will his death cause the plan to be implemented quicker?

The commander must also contemplate where the enemy will strike. Once again, more than likely Iran will use its many proxy forces in the region. The meaning of that is ominous. It means Iran could strike in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, the West Bank, Israel, Lebanon, Europe, even the American homeland.

Those are the potential consequences of Trump's decision to take out the popular general. Did he consider those consequences? The mission was successful. Soleimani is dead. Will it be worth the price?

 

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran
Read here.