Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Ludicus]

It has become increasingly evident that the US presidential system isn't working. A parliamentary one might.I have already said it,and The Atlantic agrees with me. The Executive power in the US lacks proper checks and balances.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

James Madison's Mob-Rule Fears Have Been ... - The Atlantic

Madison feared that Congress would be the most dangerous branch of the federal government, sucking power into its “impetuous vortex.” But today he would shudder at the power of the executive branch. The rise of what the presidential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. called the “imperial presidency” has unbalanced the equilibrium among the three branches. Modern presidents rule by executive order rather than consulting with Congress.

--------

Unless it's some genius 4D chess move to get people to suddenly care about these sites or something...

You make me sick. Thanks for showing us what the far right has in common with ISIS, adopting the ISIS global model. ISIS want to destroy Egypt's pyramids and the sphinx
It's interesting to note that your far-right nationalists friends gathered to prevent the statue of Robert E. Lee, a traitor who raised arms against his own country in the defense of white supremacy, from being removed from a city park in Charlottesville.
-----
Any civilized human being knows that the tangible cultural heritage of a country (buildings, monuments) is a common patrimony of mankind, and targeting cultural sites is a war crime under the 1954 Hague Convention.
For those interested- (not you, obviously)
Brazilian poet Manuel Bandeira published the poem Vou-me embora para Pasargada (I’m off to Pasargadae) describing a man who, unsatisfied with his life, talks about escaping to an utopian city, Pasargadae.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I’m leaving for Pasargada
There, I am the king’s friend
Have the woman I want
In the bed that I choose
I’m leaving for Pasargada
I am leaving because
Here I am not happy
Life there is adventure
And so very inconsequent, that
A queen of Spain, Joan the Mad
Becomes my relative, through
The daughter in law I never had
How I’ll do calisthenics
Cycle riding
Wild donkey taming
Climb greasy poles
Do some sea bathing!
When feeling tired
I’ll lie by the river bank
Send for a Siren
To retell the old tales
Those spun by Rose
When I was a child
I’m leaving for Pasargada
There, you have everything
Another civilization
With a safe-proof system
For the dangers of conception
Automatic phone booths
Alkaloids for the asking
Good looking harlots
With whom to romance
When, during the night
I am feeling sadder
Sad without hope
Wishing to kill myself
— There I am the king’s friend —
Have the woman I want
In the bed that I choose
I’m leaving for Pasargada

Pasargada, was the first capital of the Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century B.C., founded by Cyrus the Great. Added to UNESCO in 2004, it is also known as the first multicultural empire that respected cultural diversity.
Top 10 UNESCO World Heritage Sites In Iran - Culture Trip

[Sar1n]

You make me sick. Thanks for showing us what the far right has in common with ISIS, adopting the ISIS global model. ISIS want to destroy Egypt's pyramids and the sphinx
It's interesting to note that your far-right nationalists friends gathered to prevent the statue of Robert E. Lee, a traitor who raised arms against his own country in the defense of white supremacy, from being removed from a city park in Charlottesville.
-----
Any civilized human being knows that the tangible cultural heritage of a country (buildings, monuments) is a common patrimony of mankind, and targeting cultural sites is a war crime under the 1954 Hague Convention.
For those interested- (not you, obviously)
Brazilian poet Manuel Bandeira published the poem Vou-me embora para Pasargada (I’m off to Pasargadae) describing a man who, unsatisfied with his life, talks about escaping to an utopian city, Pasargadae.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I’m leaving for Pasargada
There, I am the king’s friend
Have the woman I want
In the bed that I choose
I’m leaving for Pasargada
I am leaving because
Here I am not happy
Life there is adventure
And so very inconsequent, that
A queen of Spain, Joan the Mad
Becomes my relative, through
The daughter in law I never had
How I’ll do calisthenics
Cycle riding
Wild donkey taming
Climb greasy poles
Do some sea bathing!
When feeling tired
I’ll lie by the river bank
Send for a Siren
To retell the old tales
Those spun by Rose
When I was a child
I’m leaving for Pasargada
There, you have everything
Another civilization
With a safe-proof system
For the dangers of conception
Automatic phone booths
Alkaloids for the asking
Good looking harlots
With whom to romance
When, during the night
I am feeling sadder
Sad without hope
Wishing to kill myself
— There I am the king’s friend —
Have the woman I want
In the bed that I choose
I’m leaving for Pasargada

Pasargada, was the first capital of the Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century B.C., founded by Cyrus the Great. Added to UNESCO in 2004, it is also known as the first multicultural empire that respected cultural diversity.
Top 10 UNESCO World Heritage Sites In Iran - Culture Trip

Trump and Iranian government both cultivate and capitalize on image of strong leadership, so they can't afford to show weakness, so they're both doing some chest thumping and intimidating. But neither wants war, so what will really happen is that we'll have some more strong language, few token, mostly impotent attacks like those few rockets yesterday, and all the while there'll be backroom negotiations which result in some sort of agreement that will maintain status quo while being flexible enough to give both populations something that can be twisted in media into some kind of victory. Most likely it'll be renegotiated nuclear deal with some token concessions to Iran.

But really, trying to twist someone's genuinely puzzled reaction into support for far right, that takes a lot. I believe that apology from you is in order.

[sumskilz]

Yeah I'm wondering about that. Looks like a retarded move that will cost him a lot of sympathies. IMO he should back down and apologize. Unless it's some genius 4D chess move to get people to suddenly care about these sites or something...

Mainly it's just what Sar1n said. It has the same crude appeal as after 9/11 when people were saying we should bomb the Kabaa or nuke Mecca, etc. Trump almost always doubles down though, when he's realized he's triggered the press. It's like throwing a ball for puppies to chase. They just can't help themselves, and gets them headed in the direction he wants. Just look at how much it's kept him in the news talking about being a tough guy and protecting America.

[B. W.]

Wow. The defense of Trump says clearly has no limits. Amazing how principles are sacrificed so blatantly just to create defense for that guy. Truly mind boggling. Carry on. You help make it way too obvious.

I wasn't defending Trump, but I'm glad he finally did what the two previous Presidents should have done (and so are a lot of veterans).

Minority in control? Your post gives the impression that 5 milion Arabs are ruling the poor opressed Persians. In reality the Supreme Leader is an Azeri (second largest group) and most of the government members are Persian or Azeri. President is Persian, Soleimani was Persian, the official language of Iran is Persian not Arabic. Striking cultural sites of Persians and Azeris is bound to upset most of the population.

That may be the impression you got, but that was not what I was saying. Iran is ruled by religious zealots. That is not the typical Iranian. I have neighbors on two sides and they are both Iranians who fled Iran when the Shah lost power. One's father is a Muslim, but they all drink. I can guarantee that they would be delighted if some Revolutionary Guards statues of reverance got hit with a missile and so would a lot of oppressed Iranians.

If the US leaves Iraq the Iranians would likely come in. Not all Iraqis are going to be happy with that and the entire region could go down in conflict. That wouldn't be a particularly bad thing as that is what it is going to take to finally achieve peace in the region. The whole issue boils down to the way the British drew the border lines way back when. If all those zealots are preoccupied by issues at home then the rest of the world might be a safer place.

Your idea of a cultural site might not be the same as the Pentagon's, which is what Trump made his statement on. If we pull our troops out then we should pull our embassy out as well.

[PointOfViewGun]

I wasn't defending Trump, but I'm glad he finally did what the two previous Presidents should have done (and so are a lot of veterans).

You were defending Trump. The least you could do is own that. Degenerative politics knows no bounds. Fortunately, the Pentagon tried to distance themselves from Trump's comment reminding people that they will follow international law.

[Exarch]

According former Iraqi PM, Abdul-Mehdi, the Americans threatened him and tried to foment protests against him and wanted to use Marine snipers to murder Iraqi security personnel if they didn't give them 50% of Iraq's oil and stop doing business with China.

Let's just say, that whatever the Persians have planned against the evil galactic empire of the white anglo american, cannot come soon enough.

[Heathen Hammer]

Iran has the capability to drone the crap out of Saudi oil facilities and hit US where it hurts.

[alhoon]

Re-opened. Please respect the Terms of Service. You can disagree strongly with other forum members but please be civil and don't insult each other.

[athanaric]

You're thinking as if Iran is a monolithic culture. Iran is a very disunited country. Out of the 85 million citizens only about 5 million are Arabs and over 40 million are ethnic Persian. Then are are Kurds as well as other groups. The one thing they have in common is a dislike for one another. When Trump is talking about striking cultural sites you may assume they belong to the minority that is in control of the country and there are a lot of "Iranians" who would cheer such an action.

As I said before, the reason Iran has a million man army is because that is what is required for the regime to stay in power.

Publicly musing about striking cultural targets "that are important to the Iranian people" (without specifying which ones) only serves to alienate those disaffected or apathetic Persians (and minorities) you're probably referring to. As well as alienating a few GOP members who might remember the Geneva convention and some other international accords. That's my point. It's a dumb move from the POTUS. Can't see the strategic value.

You make me sick. Thanks for showing us what the far right has in common with ISIS, adopting the ISIS global model. ISIS want to destroy Egypt's pyramids and the sphinx

Oh dear. Was the irony too subtle? FWIW, I don't believe it's a genius move by Trump, rather it sounds like something straight out of Retardville. But Trump's defenders have a habit of interpreting every utterance of his as an ingenious stratagem, and sometimes they're right. I'd argue though that it's mostly down to the stupidity and arrogance of Trump's domestic opponents rather than any brilliance on his part.

It's interesting to note that your far-right nationalists friends gathered to prevent the statue of Robert E. Lee, a traitor who raised arms against his own country in the defense of white supremacy, from being removed from a city park in Charlottesville.

See, this is what happens when you always argue in bad faith. You get people wrong over and over again.
FWIW, I also disapprove of attempts to remove any statue of Lee that hasn't been very recently erected. Otherwise, by the same standards you'd have to remove millions of statues of local "war heroes" in Latin America and Asia.

Any civilized human being knows that the tangible cultural heritage of a country (buildings, monuments) is a common patrimony of mankind, and targeting cultural sites is a war crime under the 1954 Hague Convention.

I agree, that's why I was genuinely puzzled by Trump's comment. Maybe he can be excused because they don't have anything like Persepolis or Naqsh-e Rostam where he's from?

For those interested- (not you, obviously)

Thanks, I already know about Iranian cultural heritage, don't need some obscure non-Iranian poet to remind me.

[Bob69Joe]

In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.


They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/u...suleimani.html

"Putting dishonest options into a decision-making heuristic is cynical sabotage no less fraudulent than obtaining FISA Court warrants through a rigged, political justice system."

Pretty much sums it up, I mean if the New York Times isn't just spewing something false, but the Pentagon is literally operating in such a manner. What's the big takeaway hear? "Pentagon officials" are calling Trump totalitarian, after offering up solutions to him that they hope the President does not choose from?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Tuesday that before Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike, attacks that Soleimani was planning against U.S. targets were only days away.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/slai...er-claims.html

Such odd, self-defeating logic from a chaotic Administration. If the alleged attack was “days” away, wouldn’t that mean the planning stages are fully complete and it would proceed under the command of a subordinate like any other military operation? Maybe I don’t know how these things work, but I don’t see how killing a general would be guaranteed to halt an imminent attack in the first place. If it really did, you’d think Congress would’ve gotten more details than “It’s classified.”

Soleimani, as commander of the Quds, oversaw Iran’s shadow war machine which used direct and indirect methods to spread terrorism, war and instability throughout the region against the US and her allies. He’s apparently been on a kill list for a long time. Seems like one could come up with a better rationale for the timing of taking out someone with as much blood on his hands as Soleimani without having to resort to conjecture, especially in the wake of high profile attacks on US and allied forces, and embassy.

[Love Mountain]

Again, to the extent that responding to Tehran’s attacks is going to antagonize her or that not responding is going to appease her, you’re still putting the onus for reconciliation on the subject of her attacks. I personally support the JCPOA and disagree with Trump’s decision to withdraw, but that’s irrelevant to the facts of why the JCPOA is needed in the first place - to deter a terrorist Islamist regime from ever being capable of producing nuclear weapons. As I said, the US was ready to give Khomeini a chance, even helping him smooth things over with a hostile Iranian military as he returned to Iran and consolidated his power. Once he felt he was out of the woods, the Ayatollah attacked our embassy and launched “global Islamic revolution.”

I don't consider any of this "appeasement" and I disagree with classifying the Islamic Republic as a "terrorist" regime. Almost all modern states have a history of supporting groups that could be classified as "terrorist", or a history of clandestine actions that border on the definition of the term. In short, while I see United States and other Western states today, as morally superior to other regimes, I can understand why many regimes disagree or outright view America as a hypocrite. The need to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons i not because they are Islamic or "terrorist". It is because nuclear proliferation is a threat to human safety regardless of how responsible a regime is. Rseponsible powers do not seek to pursue nuclear power period.

Also not sure why you're ignoring that the storming of the US embassy was directly preceded by refusal to hand over the Shah of Iran. Not that I think it was wrong, and that Iran was not unreasonable, but I can certainly understand their knee-jerk reaction considering the climate of the revolution.

Yeah, radical Islamic extremism and anti-US brinkmanship designed to direct public discontent toward foreign enemies and away from domestic oppressors while advancing the regime’s external ambitions.

I don't consider Iran to be pursuing a "global Islamic revolution". The regime's geopolitical ambitions are strategic, not motivated by dreams of a global Jihad against Western powers.

Again, was the Ayatollah in charge in the 50s? Aside from the usual political talking points, you’ve yet to substantiate this “it’s America’s fault” narrative. If helping the British with their oil problem by providing CIA support to the Shah caused Islamic radicals under Khomeini to seize power with US assistance 26 years later, you can move the goalposts wherever you want depending on where you want to place the blame for whatever. The British and Soviets Iraq’d the place in the 40s. The British installed the Shah by military coup in 1921. British, Ottoman, and Russian forces occupied various parts of the country during WW1. Iran warred with Russia and the Ottomans over territory throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.

As a successor regime to Iran, it's irrelevant whether Ayatollah was, or not, in charge. U.S. anti-Iran policy that was run for pretty much the entire existence of Ayatollah's regime is obvious justification for adopting an anti-American stance in the region. Especially when United States continued to support a number of anti-Iranian regimes in the region with a less than stellar (to put it mildly) human rights, or terrorist record.

During his exile, the Shah received medical care and temporary diplomatic protection from Egypt, Morocco, the Bahamas, Mexico, the US, and Panama before being given asylum in Egypt. As I said, none of this seemed to bother Khomeini while he was promising the world to the US in exchange for help to pacify the Iranian military, all before attacking our embassy and initiating US sanctions.

Pretty sure the refusal to hand over the Shah bothered the Ayatollah. In fact, that was the reasoning for refusing to hand over the hostages.

Saddam considered the Shah an enemy and initially welcomed the Revolution as a positive turn of events. Khomeini made his own bed by proving that calculation to be incorrect. How did formal diplomatic relations and aid to Saddam beginning in 1984 during a war which fomented after Khomeini publicly called for “Islamic revolution” in Iraq cause the attack on the “Great Satan” America’s embassy in 1979? Not to mention the fact dozens of countries sold arms to one side or the other or both. The US also fed arms to Iran as part of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Admittedly I know little of the Iran-Iraq war, but suffice to say, no amount of ideological posturing justifies a conflict that ended up with hundreds of thousands dead and use of chemical weapons. I'm not sure why any of the aforementioned, addresses anything said here. Anti-American sentiment by the Iranian people is well-deserved. When Khomeini took over, he wasn't going to make that sentiment disappear, especially when they just deposed, in their eyes, a US puppet. Nor do I see how any of this justified Iraq's invasion of Iran. US fed arms to Iran paled to the amount of support received by Iraq.

The USN crew in question made a series of incorrect judgement calls after being attacked by Iranian vessels in the area, which led them to mistake a civilian passenger jet for a warplane. The US settled the case with Tehran in international court and paid reparations. Tehran obviously claimed the US did it on purpose, and the case no doubt made for great propaganda in the midst of the Ayatollah’s ongoing purges. How did that cause the attack on the “Great Satan” America’s embassy in 1979?

Let's just say that United States never properly apologized and they allowed the Ayatollah's regime to feed even more propaganda.

You can believe what you want, but your opinion ignores the material and political support the US provided to Iran as well as Khomeini’s decision to end that support, to say the least.

There is an entire Wikipedia page on US support for Iraq during the war. How does that compare to how much support United States gave Iran? I'm pretty sure Iran's anger over this is well-deserved.

Time will tell whether taking out the commander of Iran’s proxy war machine was successful in damaging her ambitions long term. Tehran deliberately destabilized the entire region in the first place with her attempts to spread “Islamic revolution” far and wide through her foreign policy, terrorism and support for terrorism, regardless of whatever the US did or didn’t do. Soleimani was the symbol and the executor of that doctrine. The Pentagon is not trying to build “trust” with Tehran. The Pentagon is operating under a set of policies designed to contain a terrorist Islamist regime and blunt her ability to carry out “Islamic revolution” around the world.

Iran is no more responsible for instability in the region than any other regime. Saudis spread Wahabism, Saddam, gassed and oppressed millions, Assad shot into crowds, and Israel continues to deny basic rights to Palestinians. So I'm not sure why Iran is any more responsible than any other country. I also don't consider Iran as a necessarily threatening country because they are trying to export an Islamic revolution. On the contrary, while their strategy takes advantage of religious cleavages within Islam, this is no more insidious than any other racial, national political plays around the world.

[sumskilz]

Can't see the strategic value.

I have no idea if he thinks the tough talk intimidates the Iranians, but I assume it's mostly meant for domestic consumption. Trump is always self-promoting.

I'd argue though that it's mostly down to the stupidity and arrogance of Trump's domestic opponence rather than any brilliance on his part.

They can’t help but to campaign for him, because outrage sells and collective indignance feels so good.

Thanks to CNN and like-minded individuals on social media, these are two of the Trump quotes that were on heavy rotation for a few days straight:

"They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before!"

"They're allowed to kill our people, they're allowed to torture and maim our people, they're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people, and we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way"

Now imagine you're reading them as an American swing voter who doesn’t know an Iranian cultural site from a camel derby.

[Love Mountain]

I wouldn't be able to tell you an Iranian culture site from a pile of dirt, and that's because I'm illiterate. I would hope that a swing voter would realize the disturbing nature of deliberately targeting cultural sites, as opposed to military targets.

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/iran-launc...opstories.html

And everyone said Iran wouldn't attack directly. Its war now.

[Love Mountain]

Iran managed to respond in a way that's even dumber than what Trump did. They have to realize that Trump will feel obliged to escalate now. We'll see how bad this gets.

[Vanoi]

Iran managed to respond in a way that's even dumber than what Trump did. They have to realize that Trump will feel obliged to escalate now. We'll see how bad this gets.

https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2020/7...regional-state

The source is twitter, bit the it claims the IRGC sad they would target regional states who host "US aggression." This is going to get bad.

And way to go to Iran. Shot yourself in the foot, and you have probably lost the support you do have in Iraq.

[Nebaki]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/iran-launc...opstories.html

And everyone said Iran wouldn't attack directly. Its war now.

There is no War - US Bases in Iraq are always under such a Threat and always being attacked sometimes by some missilies which always get prevented by countermeasures - I bet Iran just will only show that these countermeasures are never will be enough to stop an real Attack from Iran against some US-based facilities and that they are (Iran) capable of more.

Iran can and will never provocate conventional War against the USA.

[swabian]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/iran-launc...opstories.html

And everyone said Iran wouldn't attack directly. Its war now.

This would have happened anyway. Iran really cannot be trusted with nuclear arms and they are building up an intimidating force in northern Africa. This has to be done.

Yes, war is the failure of politics, but the capacity for political success is just so limited here. Good luck.

[Love Mountain]

I'm curious about the North Africa thing, could you elaborate swabian?