https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...hands.html

Sounds like it was about time.

"...Terrorist general with the blood of THOUSANDS on his hands: Qassem Soleimani masterminded the killing of hundreds of US troops in IED attacks, helped Assad slaughter his people in Syria, was an ally of Hezbollah and 'more powerful than Iran's president'..."

Prayers for our deployed and their families. Hopefully swift action now will avoid bigger conflicts later.

(01-03-2020 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...hands.html

Sounds like it was about time.

"...Terrorist general with the blood of THOUSANDS on his hands: Qassem Soleimani masterminded the killing of hundreds of US troops in IED attacks, helped Assad slaughter his people in Syria, was an ally of Hezbollah and 'more powerful than Iran's president'..."

From an impact on security matters globally, this was a bigger takeout than Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi.

Up until 2 years ago it was prohibited in Iran to take a picture of the guy. Keeping him unknown was a big deal. Syria put him in the limelight.

Smile for your cameo with the 77 virgins who look like Rosie O’Donnel.

Important thread.

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

Pentagon says Iranian commander Soleimani was developing plans to attack Americans

He wasn't in Iraq for vacation....

Quote:WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. strike killed Iran Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani, the Pentagon said on Thursday, adding that Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack Americans in Iraq and the Middle East.

"At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qassem Soleimani," the Pentagon said in a statement.

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans," it said, adding that the United States would continue to take necessary action to protect Americans and interests around the world.

The Pentagon said that Soleimani had "orchestrated" attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the past few months and approved the "attacks" on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad this week.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Soleimani had been killed in a drone strike in Baghdad.

One U.S. official said that Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was also believed to have been killed in the strike, according to initial information, though he was not the primary target.

The official said the Pentagon was aware of the possibility of an Iranian response and U.S. military officials were ready to defend themselves. The official did not rule out additional U.S. troops or military assets going to the region.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said while Soleimani was "an enemy of the United States," the killing could put more Americans at risk.

"One reason we don't generally (assassinate) foreign political officials is the belief that such action will get more, not less, Americans killed," Murphy said on Twitter.

"That should be our real, pressing and grave worry tonight," he said.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that Soleimani's death "should be applauded by all who seek peace and justice."

Earlier on Thursday, before the strike, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said there were indications Iran or forces it backs may be planning additional attacks, warning that the "game has changed" and it was possible the United States might have to take preemptive action to protect American lives.

Link

(01-03-2020 10:07 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No tears shed for him, but holding back a few for my step-son who just left for a 9-month+ deployment overseas in the Naval Reserves.

Any prayers for him and his wife and three young sons...as well as my wife are appreciated.

Prayers to your family Tom..

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

Else what?

She's an expert on the situation and wants congress brought up to speed immediately on the administrations position here...if they actually even have one.

Not to mention they seem to be giving two sides of why they killed him. Was there am imminent threat or not?

(01-03-2020 11:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

Else what?

She's an expert on the situation and wants congress brought up to speed immediately on the administrations position here...if they actually even have one.

Not to mention they seem to be giving two sides of why they killed him. Was there am imminent threat or not?

Ah,ok. Seemed to me previous admins had been briefed but didn't do anything about it. Glad this admin finally did. Dude has been threat, be it imminent or not, for years. No need to play semantics when lives are in danger. We hopefully learned that from Benghazi.

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

In other words, she's one of the reasons why Soleimani was able to kill people unhindered thru the last administrations.

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

She probably thought giving a terrorist state $150 billion would work to make them become a well behaved global neighbor.

$150 billion just doesn’t buy as many IEDs, rockets and suicide vests as it used to.

(01-03-2020 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

In other words, she's one of the reasons why Soleimani was able to kill people unhindered thru the last administrations.

same thought process as Senator Chris Murphy, cited in the article a couple posts up

A good opinion article on the situation.

Quote:The decision to focus on Tehran’s proxies in the wake of the embassy attack was the right course.

As the New Year begins, it is abundantly clear that Washington’s policies designed to bend Iran to its will have failed. Yet Tehran’s’s recalcitrant responses have similarly failed to improve its own security, and the disastrous prospect of open war has drawn closer with recent events. This is truer than ever with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Trump administration had taken a step in the right direction with its recent focus on Iran’s proxies; it would be wise to return to this course.

Since April, when the State Department designated the IRGC and its special operations component, Soleimani’s Quds Force, as foreign terrorist organizations, the United States and its allies have endured a series of setbacks and human losses. Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, very likely attacked a Saudi oil facility, and shot down a U.S. drone. On Dec. 27, Iranian proxy Kata’ib Hizballah killed a U.S. citizen and wounded at least four others in a rocket attack in Iraq. Yet the year was hardly an unbridled success for Iran’s leaders. Protests have ungirded the regime at home and abroad, where its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq have suffered political setbacks.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

Neo-conservatives who pine for aggressive action against Iran chafed in September, when President Trump called off a strike in retaliation for the drone downing, and again last week when he chose to strike Kata’ib Hizballah rather than Iran itself. Yet this turn from confronting Tehran directly toward increasing pressure on its proxies was the correct policy response.

That proportionate and well-conceived response was short-lived. The Jan. 2 targeted killing of Soleimani represents a dangerous escalation. Iran’s response will put U.S. assets, and likely innocent civilians, in harm’s way. The United States must turn to a mix of smart sanctions, surgical strikes, covert action, and proxy moves to keep steady pressure on Iran without exacerbating the situation.

The US Recently Made a Smart Move Toward Iran. Killing Soleimani Wasn’t It

(01-02-2020 09:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  This is going to start WWIII.

Iran's side:
China
Syria
Iraq
Russia
North Korea
Cuba
Venezuela
Turkey

US's side:
Israel + crickets

Nobody else would come to our defense.

In all practicality, no one else has anything to contribute. We're their defense.

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

(01-03-2020 11:57 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

In other words, she's one of the reasons why Soleimani was able to kill people unhindered thru the last administrations.

Exactly.

(01-03-2020 12:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:56 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:37 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:36 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Important thread.

ok........anything else?

She's implying that Trump hasn't thought this out and/or is in over his head. I assume she would prefer pacification and cash to keep Iran in line.

I don't see that at all.

Her statement yesterday called for "careful diplomacy" after the attack on the embassy and she cautioned the administration to be "judicious" in their response. This is after she lays out Iran's role in the destabilization of Iraq and the recent attacks during which she pretty much makes the case for doing exactly what the administration did.

She on the House Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. She knows this was a good move, she's just pandering to the left that is anti-trump at all costs.

If it was made for the right reasons, then yes, it's a good move. But congress was not informed beforehand and I don't believe congress has seen the proof yet of this imminent threat. If there was one, then show congress and it's all good.