Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Cohors_Evocata]

I will need more details and research to determine where these troops are going, but this seems... disturbing. It’s almost as if Trump is daring Iran to do something. These escalations are out of hand.

Supposedly these 3000 are to join the some 650 other troops (other sources say 750 already sent there in response to the embassy kerfuffle on January 1st, and to be spread out throughout Iraq and Kuwait; they are to stay for only 60 days. NBC reports there already were some 5000 personnel in Iraq before (source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u...pound-n1109196), so it's not a significant multiplication of force in terms of numbers... but we all know temporary stays can be prolonged and increased in size. As I recall, the Iraqi authorities weren't too happy about the assault. It wouldn't surprise me if these troops are sent there to keep them in line as much as to guard against Iranian aggression.

Really though, the claim this is wholly unrelated to today's events seems too blatantly false to have been made with a straight face, even by the US military.

EDIT: Apparently the US already sent 14.000 extra troops into the Middle East in response to the tensions in May? I'm having some trouble finding the exact number of current troops there.

[B. W.]

When Obama authorized a drone strike on a terrorist the right was horrified and called him a tyrant and murderer just because the terrorist had never officially renounced his US citizenship. I think it's safe to assume that, had Obama taken out Suleimani, the right would mourn him as well.

Absolutely no evidence to support this statement. You're equating the bombing of an American citizen with the bombing of someone who was actively engaged in anti-US activities and who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers. It is strange to see how leftists draw up their equivalencies.

[Cyclops]

Disgusting to see this happen, the US is getting quite open in its bad behaviour. No tears shed for the Iranian bastard of course, but this doesn't make the world safer. I guess its just another oil war.

I’m not sure about that definition of terrorism Abdul. When the IRA blew up trucks of soldiers it was certainly terrorism.

His point stands, there are quite elaborate rules of war and how terrorism falls outside those rules. While blowing up a truck full of soldiers may feel "not military" it actually is, and if you adopt your definition then the SAS, Seal Team 6, Spetsnatz etc are all terrorist organisations.

[Heathen Hammer]

Lol, we're currently here because of Iranian actions and reactions.

Iran's actions are justified because of American illegal occupation of Iraq.
How would you like if Iran occupied Mexico or Canada and bombed pro-American groups there?
US should just leave Iran's sphere of influence and focus on its own territory instead.

[The Gurkhan]

Absolutely no evidence to support this statement. You're equating the bombing of an American citizen with the bombing of someone who was actively engaged in anti-US activities and who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers. It is strange to see how leftists draw up their equivalencies.

Hundreds of bringers of peace and love? Indeed never forget. As such we should follow this logic and correctly argue for the Pentagon and all those within to be turned into a smoking crater. Remember the Washington Post stealth bragging about US clandestine misbehaviour?

That’s not to say that the CIA effort was bootless. Run from secret operations centres in Turkey and Jordan, the program pumped many hundreds of millions of dollars to many dozens of militia groups. One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years. By the summer of 2015, the rebels were at the gates of Latakia on the northern coast, threatening Assad’s ancestral homeland and Russian bases there. Rebel fighters were also pushing toward Damascus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7e5_story.html

The millions or possibly billions the US spent on its own proxy terror will be hard to emulate by Iran or anybody else for that matter.

[Coughdrop addict]

Absolutely no evidence to support this statement. You're equating the bombing of an American citizen with the bombing of someone who was actively engaged in anti-US activities and who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers. It is strange to see how leftists draw up their equivalencies.

He was a terrorist who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible who just happened to also be a citizen. If Suleimani had been a citizen would you say Trump is in the wrong here? Or are right and wrong wholly based on who is doing it rather than what is being done?

[Heathen Hammer]

Glad to see the usual apologism for a theocratic regime and its agents. Though I suppose we should just let senior terrorists/murderers act with impunity in case they *gasp* retaliate. Worse still, the Cheeto in Chief contradicted himself and might get re-elected!

I don't really see why should Americans care about a "theocratic regime" half a globe away to begin with. Just leave the region and let Iranians bring order to what is their backyard.

[Barry Goldwater]

Iran's actions are justified because of American illegal occupation of Iraq.
How would you like if Iran occupied Mexico or Canada and bombed pro-American groups there?
US should just leave Iran's sphere of influence and focus on its own territory instead.

Yeah yeah, whatever. I bet Soleimani was thinking similar thoughts right before he got gibbed. If the next guy has any brains, he'll take a careful look of what remains of his predecessor while pondering whether it's worth embracing a similarly self-righteously self-destructive line of thought in the future.

Anyhow, while five new pages of discussion seem to have flown by since I posted here last night, can we take a moment to appreciate just how hilariously tits-up this affair has gone relative to the expectations of the OP? It's actually remarkable how badly off-the-mark his delusional anti-American fantasy has turned out to be.

[Heathen Hammer]

Yeah yeah, whatever. I bet Soleimani was thinking similar thoughts right before he got gibbed. If the next guy has any brains, he'll take a careful look of what remains of his predecessor while pondering whether it's worth embracing a similarly self-righteously self-destructive line of thought in the future.

No, but murdering a patriotic leader who proved to be instrumental in defeating ISIS will rally population against US.
This is the biggest blunder of Trump's presidency.

[B. W.]

He was a terrorist who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible who just happened to also be a citizen. If Suleimani had been a citizen would you say Trump is in the wrong here? Or are right and wrong wholly based on who is doing it rather than what is being done?

Trump hasn't bombed any American citizens. What Obama did was illegal. Obama should have gotten legal approval. He didn't. What Trump did was entirely legal. The man that was killed should have been killed when he tried to have a DC restaurant bombed to kill a Saudi diplomat.

[Yayattasa]

A quote from Pompeo:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and I discussed the decisive defensive action @realDonaldTrump employed in Baghdad to protect American lives. I emphasized that de-escalation is the United States’ principal goal.

Then a few hours later the US attacked again near Baghdad, in the Taji area.

I think Pompeo is out of the game. Trump does not consult with him at all.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Stupid move, as the actual iraqi government and parliament is soon forced to react and cancel treaties, which allows US forces to use bases on iraqi territory, if they won't lose face and the support of the shiite population majority. It will also increase anti-american attacks in Iraq, as the US forces act like during the occupation of 2003.

[tgoodenow]

Iraq won’t be pushing the US out anytime soon, as they showed in Mosul they are incapable of defending their own territory. Iran might retaliate against Saudi Arabia or someone, but they won’t kill any Americans. There are multiple points the Americans can use to harm Iran or its interests: Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon.

Iran can only make a “statement” through some dumb action and the cards they hold right now (Economy especially but also the protests) prevent them from doing much.

[Love Mountain]

Supposedly these 3000 are to join the some 650 other troops (other sources say 750 already sent there in response to the embassy kerfuffle on January 1st, and to be spread out throughout Iraq and Kuwait; they are to stay for only 60 days. NBC reports there already were some 5000 personnel in Iraq before (source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u...pound-n1109196), so it's not a significant multiplication of force in terms of numbers... but we all know temporary stays can be prolonged and increased in size. As I recall, the Iraqi authorities weren't too happy about the assault. It wouldn't surprise me if these troops are sent there to keep them in line as much as to guard against Iranian aggression.

Really though, the claim this is wholly unrelated to today's events seems too blatantly false to have been made with a straight face, even by the US military.

EDIT: Apparently the US already sent 14.000 extra troops into the Middle East in response to the tensions in May? I'm having some trouble finding the exact number of current troops there.

45-65 thousand.

This doesn’t really address my post. As I said, if MEK are terrorists, so is the Ayatollah’s regime. Using whataboutism and semantic arguments to downplay the planned bombing of civilians in Paris or Beruit or Argentina or anywhere is irrelevant to the facts. It’s also quite revealing that you apparently consider a terrorist theocracy which recently exterminated thousands of its own citizens to maintain power to be not only “democratically elected” but also “popular,” whilst referring to the US as “genocidal.”

MEK is a terrorist organization, and in fact, until 2012, was listed by United States as one, until lobbying and political expediency allowed them to be delisted. As the saying goes, "An Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend." I also don't see how MEK can be possible compared to Ayatollah's regime. For one, MEK has attacked civilian targets, including Americans, attacked embassies, and other types of violence. Most importantly, they do so directly. The Ayatollah regime uses proxies that it cannot fully control.

I'm also not sure why you're attacking the Iranian regime. It is in fact popularly established, the 1979 Islamic Revolution is accepted to have been a popular and legitimate revolution. The Ayatollah regime undergoes regular elections, and while the democratic nature of many Iranian institutions, the religious bodies especially, such as the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council, but the President of Iran and the Assembly wield considerable power. While flawed, the government is certainly accountable to its people.

Iran doesn’t merely “support shady organizations,” and no, not everyone does what Tehran does. Your talking points border on facetiousness and don’t really address my post with anything of substance. If you’re not defending Tehran’s actions or positions, I fail to see the point of such broad whataboutist comparisons and casual dismissals of countervailing facts.

Everyone uses proxies and runs covert intelligence services that have done their fair share of evils. No, not everyone has taken it to the degree that Iran has, but Iran's use of proxies, its complicity in terrorism, its propensity for irregular warfare is by no means unique. Attempting to highlight Iran's misdeeds without proper context is doing a disservice to the complexity of the region. I don't agree with Iran and I think its geopolitical ambitions are toxic to stability in the middle east, but they have a case. Iran isn't being held accountable because its a hostile country. Iran is being punished because their agenda is in direct conflict with America's.

[Barry Goldwater]

No, but murdering a patriotic leader who proved to be instrumental in defeating ISIS will rally population against US.
This is the biggest blunder of Trump's presidency.

Meanwhile in reality, Iraqis are literally celebrating in the streets at the news of Soleimani's death. They're doing this even in Basra, which is almost as far south as you can get in Southern Iraq and an epicenter of Shiite power - you'd think that if there was anywhere outside Iran itself where you could be lynched for dancing on Soleimani's grave, it'd be there, but nope. I don't know where this strange notion that the Shi'a Iraqis owe fealty to Iran on grounds of sharing a religion and that the PMF are representative of them as a whole got started, but it's an insane fantasy that not even the Iranians themselves believed, hence their (and until his death, Soleimani's) support for the crackdowns on the explicitly not just anti-corruption and anti-mismanagement but also anti-Iran protests that have been rocking the Shiite south & center of Iraq for the last few months.

[The spartan]

Glad to see the usual apologism for a theocratic regime and its agents. Though I suppose we should just let senior terrorists/murderers act with impunity in case they *gasp* retaliate. Worse still, the Cheeto in Chief contradicted himself and might get re-elected!

Aren't you against interventionism?

[B. W.]

Meanwhile in reality, Iraqis are literally celebrating in the streets at the news of Soleimani's death. They're doing this even in Basra, which is almost as far south as you can get in Southern Iraq and an epicenter of Shiite power - you'd think that if there was anywhere outside Iran itself where you could be lynched for dancing on Soleimani's grave, it'd be there, but nope. I don't know where this strange notion that the Shi'a Iraqis owe fealty to Iran on grounds of sharing a religion and that the PMF are representative of them as a whole got started, but it's an insane fantasy that not even the Iranians themselves believed, hence their (and until his death, Soleimani's) support for the crackdowns on the explicitly not just anti-corruption and anti-mismanagement but also anti-Iran protests that have been rocking the Shiite south & center of Iraq for the last few months.

You can bet that there are at least some Iranians celebrating. It was the guards under Soleiman's control that brutally cracked down on protesters in some Iranian cities. The Iranians are trying to put a good face on it, but the fact is they are worried about his demise giving life to the growing protest movement against the government.

[Cope]

Aren't you against interventionism?

Yes, generally.

To my mind, there is a self-evident difference between poorly planned, illegally executed, full scale invasions which destabilize entire global regions and the precision termination of a murderous kingpin. In case you were wondering, I didn't shed a tear for Bin Laden or Al Baghdadi either.

[Lord Thesaurian]

MEK is a terrorist organization, and in fact, until 2012, was listed by United States as one, until lobbying and political expediency allowed them to be delisted. As the saying goes, "An Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend." I also don't see how MEK can be possible compared to Ayatollah's regime. For one, MEK has attacked civilian targets, including Americans, attacked embassies, and other types of violence. Most importantly, they do so directly. The Ayatollah regime uses proxies that it cannot fully control.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m denying MEK is a terrorist organization. Indeed it is, for many of the same reasons that Tehran’s Islamist regime is a sponsor of terrorism which has engaged directly and indirectly in plots and attacks around the world, through her proxies as well as through the IRGC/Quds.

I'm also not sure why you're attacking the Iranian regime. It is in fact popularly established, the 1979 Islamic Revolution is accepted to have been a popular and legitimate revolution.

There were many forces involved in the Revolution against the Shah besides Khomeini’s - including MEK as I mentioned. I haven’t made any argument as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Iranian regime. Since you brought it up, there was no guarantee which faction would come out on top, especially as it became clearer that the Shah’s days were numbered. MEK, for example, enjoyed plenty of “popular support” amongst leftist student movements and the professional class.

There’s a compelling case to be made that Khomeini wouldn’t have been successful in the first place without US help. The would-be Supreme Leader essentially played US leaders like a fiddle, painting a moderate, introverted and US-friendly picture that was very different from the “global Islamic Revolution” he would launch once taking power and American hostages; to say nothing of the purges that killed thousands of perceived political threats as Khomeini consolidated power, and the universal suppression of any media or institutions deemed incompatible with theocratic rule.

MEK was just one of the various political factions on the receiving end of these purges. The terroristic and guerrilla tactics they would adopt in response is what you correctly call terrorism whilst somehow dismissing Tehran’s actions and history as “a propensity for irregular warfare.” The difference between MEK and the Ayatollah is that the former lost.

The Ayatollah regime undergoes regular elections, and while the democratic nature of many Iranian institutions, the religious bodies especially, such as the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council, but the President of Iran and the Assembly wield considerable power. While flawed, the government is certainly accountable to its people.

This kind of apologism makes me wonder why people who push similar narratives bother to criticize the actions or characteristics of any government at all. The Supreme Leader is vested with ultimate executive, legislative, and judicial authority in Iran, regardless of whatever pretense of power the subordinate branches of government might play at while operating at his discretion. If a terrorist theocracy which recently exterminated thousands of its own citizens to maintain power is “accountable to its people,” the latter concept itself has lost all meaning.

Everyone uses proxies and runs covert intelligence services that have done their fair share of evils. No, not everyone has taken it to the degree that Iran has, but Iran's use of proxies, its complicity in terrorism, its propensity for irregular warfare is by no means unique. Attempting to highlight Iran's misdeeds without proper context is doing a disservice to the complexity of the region. I don't agree with Iran and I think its geopolitical ambitions are toxic to stability in the middle east, but they have a case.

“Everyone does it” is neither true nor does it lend credence to the idea that you’re trying to give context to something. To the extent I “highlighted Iran’s misdeeds,” it was in direct response to whataboutist narratives suggesting that there are none.

Iran isn't being held accountable because its a hostile country. Iran is being punished because their agenda is in direct conflict with America's.

40 years of attacks around the world against the US and her allies is indeed a conflicting agenda. If you don’t consider Tehran to be a “hostile” regime, I’m not sure any in modern history could rise to your standard.

[Love Mountain]

I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m denying MEK is a terrorist organization. Indeed it is, for many of the same reasons that Tehran’s Islamist regime is a sponsor of terrorism which has engaged directly and indirectly in plots and attacks around the world, through her proxies as well as through the IRGC/Quds.

There is a distinction between being a terrorist organization and sponsoring terrorism. Tehran is not a terrorist organization for the same reason United States wasn't a terrorist organization when they gave direct support to Contras during the Cold War.

There were many forces involved in the Revolution against the Shah besides Khomeini’s - including MEK as I mentioned. I haven’t made any argument as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Iranian regime. Since you brought it up, there was no guarantee which faction would come out on top, especially as it became clearer that the Shah’s days were numbered. MEK, for example, enjoyed plenty of “popular support” amongst leftist student movements and the professional class.

There’s a compelling case to be made that Khomeini wouldn’t have been successful in the first place without US help. The would-be Supreme Leader essentially played US leaders like a fiddle, painting a moderate, introverted and US-friendly picture that was very different from the “global Islamic Revolution” he would launch once taking power and American hostages; to say nothing of the purges that killed thousands of perceived political threats as Khomeini consolidated power, and the universal suppression of any media or institutions deemed incompatible with theocratic rule.

MEK was just one of the various political factions on the receiving end of these purges. The terroristic and guerrilla tactics they would adopt in response is what you correctly call terrorism whilst somehow dismissing Tehran’s actions and history as “a propensity for irregular warfare.” The difference between MEK and the Ayatollah is that the former lost.

The difference between MEK and the Ayatollah is that one is a legitimate government defending its interests while the other is not. That's a very large difference. Not to mention that supporting terrorism and committing terrorism are different things. Iran pursues such tactics because it does not possess alternative tools.

This kind of apologism makes me wonder why people who push similar narratives bother to criticize the actions or characteristics of any government at all. The Supreme Leader is vested with ultimate executive, legislative, and judicial authority in Iran, regardless of whatever pretense of power the subordinate branches of government might play at while operating at his discretion. If a terrorist theocracy which recently exterminated thousands of its own citizens to maintain power is “accountable to its people,” the latter concept itself has lost all meaning.

I'm not sure why you classify this as apologism and I don't agree with this kind of absolutism.

“Everyone does it” is neither true nor does it lend credence to the idea that you’re trying to give context to something. To the extent I “highlighted Iran’s misdeeds,” it was in direct response to whataboutist narratives suggesting that there are none.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What exactly has Iran pioneered that other countries, haven't done in the last century? Secondly, I really don't think anybody here thinks that Iran is an innocent bystander, that's not really the point. The protest here is that Iran is being singled out when Iran is not the only country that sponsors terrorism, they're not the only country with strong anti-American sentiments, and they're definitely not the only country with human rights abuses. So I don't see what the utility of bringing up Iran's terrible record is. I doubt anybody on this board is actually going to miss Soleimani, some of us, like myself, have never even heard of him until the last few days. The issue isn't whether he was a good or bad man. The issue is that this escalation is terrible news for the region.

40 years of attacks around the world against the US and her allies is indeed a conflicting agenda. If you don’t consider Tehran to be a “hostile” regime, I’m not sure any in modern history could rise to your standard.

Iran's hostility is not without merit. I think it's incredibly hypocritical to bring up the last 40 years of Iran's misdeeds when one of the main reasons behind the existence of the current regime in Iran is American foreign policy. Quite frankly, one of the biggest obstacles to peace in the middle east is United States itself. If your main argument is humanitarian and moral, if you're concerned with reducing terrorism, then assassinating Soleimani is counter-productive. As is attempting to to drive Iran into a corner because you want it to change its behavior.