Israel, Palestine and Iran

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, sne said:

Are we 100% that Iran did all those things, seem a bit too convenient.

Yes. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Pompeo visited Iraq in mid-December after several Iran sponsored rocket attacks on American or joint American-Iraqi (anti-ISIS) bases. He warned that if an American was killed the US would respond “firmly & decisively.”

That line was crossed last week and it turns out he wasn’t kidding. 

There's an actual procedure for declaring war in the American Constitution, and it involves a vote in Congress, not Mike Pompeo making threats and then murdering people via flying robot.

[HanoiVillan]

I love this 'he was a bad guy' thing, as if that had anything to do with anything. Ordering the father of an American citizen, who is a prominent employee of an American newspaper, to be murdered in an embassy and then disembodied with a bonesaw also makes you 'a bad guy' by any normal moral measurement, but somehow one person has been killed by a drone strike and the other one hasn't.

Turns out that being 'a bad guy' can provoke different responses.

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's an actual procedure for declaring war in the American Constitution, and it involves a vote in Congress, not Mike Pompeo making threats and then murdering people via flying robot.

Ah yes, and when was this 'procedure' followed the last time? Eisenhower in 41/2?

Not that I'm a Trump follower, but did you afford Obama the same scrutiny when he bombed Libya\Hezbollah\Assad\Somalia etc?

[Awol]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

There's an actual procedure for declaring war in the American Constitution, and it involves a vote in Congress, not Mike Pompeo making threats and then murdering people via flying robot.

Indeed there is. The US has been operating under a Congressional AUMF (authorisation for use of military force) to fight terrorism since 2001. That has covered all subsequent operations across the world (including the anti ISIS campaign) except for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which they granted a specific AUMF in 2002. 
 

 

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, sne said:

Obama was the king of drone strikes

Really?

Beeb:

Quote

President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones.

...

What was the rule?

It required the head of the CIA to release annual summaries of US drone strikes and assess how many died as a result.

Mr Trump's executive order does not overturn reporting requirements on civilian deaths set for the military by Congress.

There have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency, compared with 1,878 in Mr Obama's eight years in office, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a UK-based think tank.

...rest on link

 

[sne]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Really?

Beeb:

 

there is a new king now apparently.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Ah yes, and when was this 'procedure' followed the last time? Eisenhower in 41/2?

Not that I'm a Trump follower, but did you afford Obama the same scrutiny when he bombed Libya\Hezbollah\Assad\Somalia etc?

2002, as per Awol's post below yours. And yes, I opposed Obama carrying on endless war as well. I opposed the Libyan War from the moment it was first suggested, and history has proven me right, frankly. Democrats can absolutely be as bad as Republicans on this, though they also tend to be more competent.

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Indeed there is. The US has been operating under a Congressional AUMF (authorisation for use of military force) to fight terrorism since 2001. That has covered all subsequent operations across the world (including the anti ISIS campaign) except for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which they granted a specific AUMF in 2002.

. . . Which is an authorisation for endless war, and which should not have been made, and cannot reasonably be considered to apply to all actions that have been taken under it.

[Awol]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

. . . Which is an authorisation for endless war, and which should not have been made, and cannot reasonably be considered to apply to all actions that have been taken under it.

You’ll have to take that one up with Congress mate, I only get paid to analyse this stuff. 

[Davkaus]

I'm just hoping, no matter what happens, we're not stupid enough to get dragged in to this one. Let America and Iran spend tens of billions on murdering each other. Not our problem.

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'm just hoping, no matter what happens, we're not stupid enough to get dragged in to this one. Let America and Iran spend tens of billions on murdering each other. Not our problem.

If only we weren't about to embark on a self-destructive geopolitical project that can apparently only be salvaged by a free trade deal with America, which might give Trump a teeny tiny bit of leverage in the matter.

I mean, I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic.

[Awol]

I think we’re on pretty safe ground. UK Gov’ doesn’t want in on this one. 

[peterms]

It's a very strange move by the US, and it seems to be a direct result of realising their strategic mistake in killing Iraqis and calling them "an Iranian-backed militia".  That move led not only to the storming of the embassy (which the US and compliant media are trying to claim was inspired and guided by Iran), but also reconsideration by the Iraqi parliament of the very presence of US forces in Iraq.

Elijah Magnier wrote about this here, just hours before Soleimani was murdered.

Quote

...On 27^th December 2019, several rockets were fired from unidentified attackers against the K1 Iraqi military base in Kirkuk, north of Iraq. In this base, as in many others, Iraqi and US military are present on the same ground and within the same walls, even if they have different command and control HQs. Two Iraqi policemen and one American contractor were killed and 2 Iraqi Army officers and four US contractors were wounded.

The following day, Defence Secretary Mark Esper called the Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister to inform him of “his decision to bomb Kataeb Hezbollah bases in Iraq”. Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper to meet face-to-face, and told his interlocutor that this would be dangerous for Iraq: he rejected the US decision. Esper responded that he was “not calling to negotiate but to inform about a decision that has already been taken”. Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper if the US has “proof against Kataeb Hezbollah to share so Iraq can arrest those responsible for the attack on K1”. No response: Esper told Abdel Mahdi that the US was “well-informed” and that the attack would take place “in a few hours”.

In less than half an hour, US jets bombed five Iraqi security forces’ positions deployed along the Iraqi-Syrian borders, in the zone of Akashat, 538 kilometres from the K1 military base (that had been bombed by perpetrators still unknown!). The US announced the attack but omitted the fact that in these positions there were not only Kataeb Hezbollah but also Iraqi Army and Federal Police officers. Most victims of the US attack were Iraqi army and police officers. Only 9 officers of Kataeb Hezbollah – who joined the Iraqi Security Forces in 2017 – were killed. These five positions had the task of intercepting and hunting down ISIS and preventing the group’s militants from crossing the borders from the Anbar desert. The closest city to these bombed positions is al-Qaem, 150 km away.

What is the outcome of the US bombing of the Iraqi security forces?

Iran had been struggling to achieve consensus among various Iraqi political parties.  In Baghdad, it had been impossible to unite them to select a new Prime Minister following the resignation of Adel Abdel Mahdi. Political parties, above all groups representing the Shia majority, were divided amongst themselves and incapable of selecting a suitable candidate. Protestors were occupying the streets and the Hashd al-Shaabi flag was not tolerated in Baghdad square.

The US bombing of the Iraqi security forces’ positions fell as manna to Iran. Secretaries Pompeo and Esper’s actions were in perfect harmony with the goals of the IRGC-Quds brigade commander Qassem Soleimani. The two US officials broke the Iraqi political stalemate and diverted the country’s attention towards the US embassy and the break-in of protestors to contest the US bombing of Iraqi security forces.

Members of Hashd al-Shaabi and other Iraqi forces units, along with families and friends of the 79 (killed and wounded) victims demonstrated outside the US embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Flags of Hashd al-Shaabi were flying over the entrance of the US embassy. The withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq became the priority of the Iraqi parliament, and even of Moqtada al-Sadr.

The US paid the price of thousands of killed and wounded and trillions of dollars to maintain a zone of influence, military bases and a friendly government in Iraq, but they have failed to achieve these objectives. Irresponsible and erroneous analysis of the situation in Iraq and its dynamics has proved that its authors are detached and isolated from that reality.

The US may end up being pushed out of Iraq and Syria. It may move to Kurdistan. But if the parliament fails to reach an agreement over its presence in Iraq, US forces will no longer be in a friendly environment and may be targeted by various Iraqi groups, bringing back memories of 2005.

One single rushed decision emanating from inexperienced US policymakers, evidently following the advice of think tanks, has dealt the US a setback in the region. Was the advice of neocon think-tank analysts shaped by incompetence, or simply by their agenda? They are indeed separated by a great distance from realities on the ground in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, and US policymakers are clearly not getting sound advice on the region.

All this plays into the hands of Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, whose only need is to capitalize on American mistakes in the Middle East. The US is making Iran stronger, demonstrating the truth of Sayyed Ali Khamenei’s comment: “Thank God our enemies are imbeciles”.

 

Presumably the more deranged policy advisers in the US are hoping to provoke Iran into a reaction which can be met with a major escalation by the US, in the hope of somehow retrieving the situation by moving to all-out conflict.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

I think we’re on pretty safe ground. UK Gov’ doesn’t want in on this one.

Hmm. I'm not sure we ought to rely upon the immediate response of Dominic Raab as an indication of where the Government might be in a week or a month or more (I don't think we ought to rely upon the immediate response of the Prime Minister, either).

[StefanAVFC]

And I would argue that the first sentence in Raab's statement is almost phrased as 'yeah, we know why you did it'.

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Hmm. I'm not sure we ought to rely upon the immediate response of Dominic Raab as an indication of where the Government might be in a week or a month or more (I don't think we ought to rely upon the immediate response of the Prime Minister, either).

Probably need to give him at least a week to figure out where Iran is and whether it has any importance.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Hmm. I'm not sure we ought to rely upon the immediate response of Dominic Raab as an indication of where the Government might be in a week or a month or more (I don't think we ought to rely upon the immediate response of the Prime Minister, either).

You do him a disservice.  Why, only months ago he demonstrated his geopolitical awareness by noting that a lot of goods pass through the port of Dover.  We have much to learn from him.

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

And I would argue that the first sentence in Raab's statement is almost phrased as 'yeah, we know why you did it'.

It is an odd statement isn't it? It's essentially "he deserved to die, now let's leave it at that. Shake hands?"

I mean, he might not be wrong, but it's an odd sentiment to express in an official statement.

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

You do him a disservice.  Why, only months ago he demonstrated his geopolitical awareness by noting that a lot of goods pass through the port of Dover.  We have much to learn from him.

"Iran? I thought they'd gone to war with a man"

Edited January 3, 2020 by Davkaus

[Dodgyknees]

Yay, war

So happy for the gammon, who can use so much tissue now, and then moan about Iranian refugees, because... Well, of war.