On the 2nd of January, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general, on Iraqi soil. While there was context leading up to this (I'll get to that), it's a fact several experts and pentagon employees claim it was just 'another day in the middle east'. Congress wasn't even informed of the action until afterward.
I have to admit: I never heard of the guy. And my guess is: neither did you (hint: his name never came up on gbatemp until now). But that's okay, because neither did Donald Trump prior to his election. That's not the issue, though: you don't have to be the poster child of Al-qaeda or IS to be an enemy of the USA. The problem is that Soleimani wasn't leading some gang of ragtag rebels, but is (was) a genuine Iranian military leader. About the second most important man in Iran, as far as I hear. So lemme ask you this: if another country bombs Mike Pence...would it be considered an act of war (regardless of whether it was provoked or not)?
...I'm going to assume your answer is "yes" in this (if not, please comment below
). So likewise, it's not exactly surprising that the entire country screams "death to the US"(1). And hey...since Donald treats the country as if they aren't following the nuclear agreement, exactly what reason do they still have to follow that treaty in the first place(2)? Result:
@donald Trump: thanks a lot, fuckwad. You might not care about maintaining relationships with a country that want to throw a nuclear bomb on your ass, but the rest of the world fucking cares. I hope you not only get removed from office but put on a one-way ticket to the middle east, asshole. Good luck convincing them in person that your action was to avoid war.
Ahem...personal opinion aside: let's talk about how we got in this mess (source: NY times). Soleimani wasn't an innocent Joe by a long shot. From what I gather (yes: after the facts) Soleimani ordered bombings on US military depots in the region(3) in december. Following this, pentagon officials gave Trump some options on how to respond to this. Taking Soleimani oout was apparently a comedy last option. A sort of equivalent of a "GO ALL NUCLEAR ON THEM!!!!" option that's only there to make the other options less humane(4).
It has to be said: Trump went with an "eye for an eye" response: the US followed suit and bombed some Iranian facilities. Yes, it's cynical that this is considered "another day in the middle east" by experts, but that's how things go.
Of course Iran (Soleimani?) acted as if their casualties were important - gee? I wonder why? - and talked about retaliation.
At this point, Trump's thought process becomes important. The guy is an enemy of the US, no doubt about it. That's what happens if you scavenge other countries for their natural resources: you learn how to live with having enemies. And admitted: trading bombardments isn't exactly going to bring world peace any closer. Why why the elimination?
Look...I didn't call Al-qaeda and IS "ragtag rebels" because I like saying it but because at the time their leaders were killed, it's what they had become. If Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi were killed when their groups were the hype of the day, two others would have taken their place. So as much as I personally dislike Donald, taking out al-Baghdadi was, effectively, the right thing to do. So a 'thanks' is in order. So here it is: thanks, Donald. I'd say "try not to squander your built reputation credit all at once", but you were already so far in the negative that gratefulness was hardly closer.
But to get back at that thought process: what was he thinking prior to choosing that assassination? Did he blatantly forget that Iran has nuclear potential? Did he really not foresee that this call for war would be their reaction? Was he jealous of the fact that Soleimani fought IS better than the US army? Was he seeing an opportunity to deflect the attention from the fact that he's impeached and facing trial? (because yeah...thanks to this shit show, nobody's asking McConnell why he wants to turn the Senate's most important duty into class justice(5)
) Oh, and right...shouldn't Pompeo and Pence be the adults in the room? I mean...it's been a public secret since about the release of 'Fire and fury' that the white house employees more or less run the place by choosing which documents Trump gets to read. Shouldn't these muppets be able to temper him when he has a tantrum like this?
Either way...that's when the decision was made to start a war with Iran. You might disagree and be dumb enough to think that it's just about taking out an enemy of the US, but as I've pointed out these matters are inseparable at this point. Heck...it's worse than that: by killing without warning on Iraqi soil, just about the entire middle east now has beef with the US. And that's about as grim as it can be: a unified middle east would've been a fine thing to achieve. But unfortunately for us(6), they're uniting against the West...
Since then, Trump is of course playing dumb (her's a backhand compliment for ya: he's good at that). Claiming on one hand that he doesn't want a war but almost at the same time saying he has 52 targets picked in case Iran responds in any way. Meanwhile Pence openly talks about lunatic conspiracy theories (seriously? 9/11 AGAIN? No, Mike. Get off the stage before someone hands you a "when you lose the crowd, mention 'weapons of mass destruction' until they cheer for you again" card). So...war. Yeey.
Fuckwads.
Oh...right: the poll. At this point I can't even be bothered to attempt neutrality. For what it's worth, I voted "No, he's just too dumb". It's a myth to think that leaders are much smarter than you...they at best have better advisors. But since Trump fires everyone smarter than him, I think that reducing his huga-ass impopularity (last I heard 55% wanted him removed from office. That's a lot, considering that most Americans avoid politics like the plague) is at best a factor in his process. He's just a weak man trying to be strong. So he makes those decisions, expecting that someone else will clean up the mess (what? HIS mess? of course not! He's Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't do mistakes ).
(1): in this matter, it's actually convenient that Pence isn't exactly a charismatic leader that is a shining beacon to his people. If he was, the comparison would've been better but y'all would have taken it way too personal to even consider that other countries might not want their leaders get killed by foreigners either.
(2): yes, I know...in a theoretical fashion, the treaty is still held between Iran and the EU member states. But since the USA bullies our companies when they do business with Iran, it undermines that reason to uphold it as well
(3): he's also suspected of that attack on oil transports at sea and a drone strike on an oil refinery. While not proven, these are considered to have a huge impact on the global oil market
(4): both W. Bush and Obama were in similar situations. They went (and stayed with) other options
(5): at least republicans aren't wrong when they call it 'a sham' or 'kangourou court'. Now all they need to do is admit that it's because of their actions (refute witnesses, allowing documents not to be released, openly discuss with the accused...)
(6): make no mistake: Europe at best isn't immediately involved in this mess. But like your Iraqi mess lead to IS lead to multiple bombings (among which in my proverbial backyard), I'm sure that Europe will be seen as an accomplish in the upcoming mess as well.
I have to admit: I never heard of the guy. And my guess is: neither did you (hint: his name never came up on gbatemp until now). But that's okay, because neither did Donald Trump prior to his election. That's not the issue, though: you don't have to be the poster child of Al-qaeda or IS to be an enemy of the USA. The problem is that Soleimani wasn't leading some gang of ragtag rebels, but is (was) a genuine Iranian military leader. About the second most important man in Iran, as far as I hear. So lemme ask you this: if another country bombs Mike Pence...would it be considered an act of war (regardless of whether it was provoked or not)?
...I'm going to assume your answer is "yes" in this (if not, please comment below
). So likewise, it's not exactly surprising that the entire country screams "death to the US"(1). And hey...since Donald treats the country as if they aren't following the nuclear agreement, exactly what reason do they still have to follow that treaty in the first place(2)? Result:@donald Trump: thanks a lot, fuckwad. You might not care about maintaining relationships with a country that want to throw a nuclear bomb on your ass, but the rest of the world fucking cares. I hope you not only get removed from office but put on a one-way ticket to the middle east, asshole. Good luck convincing them in person that your action was to avoid war.
Ahem...personal opinion aside: let's talk about how we got in this mess (source: NY times). Soleimani wasn't an innocent Joe by a long shot. From what I gather (yes: after the facts) Soleimani ordered bombings on US military depots in the region(3) in december. Following this, pentagon officials gave Trump some options on how to respond to this. Taking Soleimani oout was apparently a comedy last option. A sort of equivalent of a "GO ALL NUCLEAR ON THEM!!!!" option that's only there to make the other options less humane(4).
It has to be said: Trump went with an "eye for an eye" response: the US followed suit and bombed some Iranian facilities. Yes, it's cynical that this is considered "another day in the middle east" by experts, but that's how things go.
Of course Iran (Soleimani?) acted as if their casualties were important - gee? I wonder why? - and talked about retaliation.
At this point, Trump's thought process becomes important. The guy is an enemy of the US, no doubt about it. That's what happens if you scavenge other countries for their natural resources: you learn how to live with having enemies. And admitted: trading bombardments isn't exactly going to bring world peace any closer. Why why the elimination?
Look...I didn't call Al-qaeda and IS "ragtag rebels" because I like saying it but because at the time their leaders were killed, it's what they had become. If Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi were killed when their groups were the hype of the day, two others would have taken their place. So as much as I personally dislike Donald, taking out al-Baghdadi was, effectively, the right thing to do. So a 'thanks' is in order. So here it is: thanks, Donald. I'd say "try not to squander your built reputation credit all at once", but you were already so far in the negative that gratefulness was hardly closer.
But to get back at that thought process: what was he thinking prior to choosing that assassination? Did he blatantly forget that Iran has nuclear potential? Did he really not foresee that this call for war would be their reaction? Was he jealous of the fact that Soleimani fought IS better than the US army? Was he seeing an opportunity to deflect the attention from the fact that he's impeached and facing trial? (because yeah...thanks to this shit show, nobody's asking McConnell why he wants to turn the Senate's most important duty into class justice(5)
) Oh, and right...shouldn't Pompeo and Pence be the adults in the room? I mean...it's been a public secret since about the release of 'Fire and fury' that the white house employees more or less run the place by choosing which documents Trump gets to read. Shouldn't these muppets be able to temper him when he has a tantrum like this? Either way...that's when the decision was made to start a war with Iran. You might disagree and be dumb enough to think that it's just about taking out an enemy of the US, but as I've pointed out these matters are inseparable at this point. Heck...it's worse than that: by killing without warning on Iraqi soil, just about the entire middle east now has beef with the US. And that's about as grim as it can be: a unified middle east would've been a fine thing to achieve. But unfortunately for us(6), they're uniting against the West...
Since then, Trump is of course playing dumb (her's a backhand compliment for ya: he's good at that). Claiming on one hand that he doesn't want a war but almost at the same time saying he has 52 targets picked in case Iran responds in any way. Meanwhile Pence openly talks about lunatic conspiracy theories (seriously? 9/11 AGAIN? No, Mike. Get off the stage before someone hands you a "when you lose the crowd, mention 'weapons of mass destruction' until they cheer for you again" card). So...war. Yeey.
Fuckwads.
Oh...right: the poll. At this point I can't even be bothered to attempt neutrality. For what it's worth, I voted "No, he's just too dumb". It's a myth to think that leaders are much smarter than you...they at best have better advisors. But since Trump fires everyone smarter than him, I think that reducing his huga-ass impopularity (last I heard 55% wanted him removed from office. That's a lot, considering that most Americans avoid politics like the plague) is at best a factor in his process. He's just a weak man trying to be strong. So he makes those decisions, expecting that someone else will clean up the mess (what? HIS mess? of course not! He's Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't do mistakes
).(1): in this matter, it's actually convenient that Pence isn't exactly a charismatic leader that is a shining beacon to his people. If he was, the comparison would've been better but y'all would have taken it way too personal to even consider that other countries might not want their leaders get killed by foreigners either.
(2): yes, I know...in a theoretical fashion, the treaty is still held between Iran and the EU member states. But since the USA bullies our companies when they do business with Iran, it undermines that reason to uphold it as well
(3): he's also suspected of that attack on oil transports at sea and a drone strike on an oil refinery. While not proven, these are considered to have a huge impact on the global oil market
(4): both W. Bush and Obama were in similar situations. They went (and stayed with) other options
(5): at least republicans aren't wrong when they call it 'a sham' or 'kangourou court'. Now all they need to do is admit that it's because of their actions (refute witnesses, allowing documents not to be released, openly discuss with the accused...)
(6): make no mistake: Europe at best isn't immediately involved in this mess. But like your Iraqi mess lead to IS lead to multiple bombings (among which in my proverbial backyard), I'm sure that Europe will be seen as an accomplish in the upcoming mess as well.
