Iran Fires Missiles at U.S. Forces in Iraq

[JimL]

How do you know what "this" I'm talking about. The Iranian stuff goes way back to the Carter days.

Actually the Iranian stuff goes back to the 1950's when the U.S. initiated a coup and propped up the pro western Shah.

[Cow Poke]

Actually the Iranian stuff goes back to the 1950's when the U.S. initiated a coup and propped up the pro western Shah.

And way beyond that, Jim.

[whag]

Now Lyin' Biden is claiming that Trump was threatening to bomb HOLY sites.

“Some of the things he’s done and said in the meantime have been close to ludicrous,” Biden said. “Including threatening to bomb holy sites…And I just pray to God as he goes through what’s happening, as we speak, that he’s listening to his military commanders for the first time because so far that has not been the case.”

I wouldn’t put it past a Trump to threaten that, either. Cultural sites are valuable as human history and even worse to threaten. The only reason he backed off that is because he was told it was a war crime.

[Cow Poke]

I wouldn’t put it past a Trump to threaten that, either. Cultural sites are valuable as human history and even worse to threaten. The only reason he backed off that is because he was told it was a war crime.

You asked when he backed off, and I answered, and, yes, I said it was because he was told it was illegal.

[whag]

Gosh, thanks.



To what end? What does that accomplish? Politicians on both sides say stupid things. Yeah, I know - Trump takes it to a whole new level.



How do you know what "this" I'm talking about. The Iranian stuff goes way back to the Carter days.



And I never said we have.

Seriously, whag - have I ever done battle with you? Have I ever been anything but respectful to you?

Sorry if I came off as combative.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry if I came off as combative.

It seems to be systemic here.

Apology accepted.

[JimL]

Now Lyin' Biden is claiming that Trump was threatening to bomb HOLY sites.

“Some of the things he’s done and said in the meantime have been close to ludicrous,” Biden said. “Including threatening to bomb holy sites…And I just pray to God as he goes through what’s happening, as we speak, that he’s listening to his military commanders for the first time because so far that has not been the case.”

The U.S. is a signatory to the 1954 Hague convention which makes it illegal to target cultural sites. And btw many religious sites in Iran are cultural sites.

[Cow Poke]

The U.S. is a signatory to the 1954 Hague convention which makes it illegal to target cultural sites.

Yes, I said several times he was told it was illegal.

And btw many religious sites in Iran are cultural sites.

Also true, but thanks.

[seanD]

Unlike you, Sean is very antiwar and sees the danger of Trump provoking war by 1) choosing the least diplomatic option and 2) then promising via Twitter to destroy cultural sites “very important to Iran and Iranians.”

You seem to be glib about it all, whereas Sean can see how demonic it is for any leader to chest thump about something so grave. If that tweet doesn’t deeply disturb you, then Trump’s carnival barker black magic has gotten to you.

War is inevitable in this world. I was more concerned about 2020 election. But that's shot now. Oh well

[rogue06]

It seems more people were killed in today's funeral procession than were killed in the missile attack.

55 to 0

Yeah either Iran's missiles aren't very accurate or else this was done to make a statement.

[Starlight]

I was fearful of war breaking out when I first read the headlines of Iran sending missiles, but the more I read, the more I'm optimistic that this is a deescalation by Iran.

Iran appears to have intentionally made a token strike only. They seem to have intended to hit nothing major and kill no one, and it appears they have been successful at this. They seem to be doing the equivalent of what Trump did 2 years ago when he launched a few missiles at an empty runway in Syria and did nothing more. They can sell it to their people who have been turning out in the millions for Soleimani's funeral as We Are Totally Taking An Action And Doing Something To Avenge Your Hero whilst taking essentially no action.

Iran's leadership has also been publicly saying that if the US doesn't respond to these missile strikes, that Iran will consider the issue resolved and take no further action. That's great!

Iran's leadership has also been publicly saying that they will not target any US civilians, and have made it clear to all their associated and allied forces that US civilians are not to be targeted. Awesome!

I'm glad one of the two parties in this conflict is rational and wants to deescalate. Let's hope Trump is smart enough to understand this gesture, and is prepared to let the issue go. So far Trump's reaction has been sane, and he's been playing down the importance of the strikes. Awesome!

And, for bonus points, Trump appears to have retreated from his previous threat to act like ISIS by destroying sites of cultural significance.

So, overall, it looks like a positive day and a step in the direction of peace.

[Starlight]

War is inevitable in this world.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. No specific war is inevitable.

Also, there are general factors that reduce the probability of war, e.g. increased trade between the nations, democratic governance, lack of stealable resources etc. No two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, and the proportion of the planet that has democratic governments has increased over time and is still increasing. The frequency and scale of wars has decreased accordingly. It seems reasonably likely it will eventually reach zero. The probability a given person has of dying violently have been trending downwards for a millennium and is still continuing to decrease. These things demonstrate that war is not some sort of inevitable universal product of human nature, but rather a product of society and the international state of affairs.

I was more concerned about 2020 election. But that's shot now. Oh well

This crisis seems to have focused the public on the topic of candidate's stances on war, which is playing very well for Bernie Sanders who was one of the few people in congress to vote against the Iraq war. In his speech in 2003 on the subject he rightly questioned the accuracy of the claims the Bush administration was making, and rightly predicted that invading Iraq would lead to the rise of an ISIS-like group that would cause the US problems. Biden, meanwhile, has been taking some flak, and rightly so, for his vote for the Iraq war and his bumbling and incorrect stances on the war issues at that time.

[seanD]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. No specific war is inevitable.

Also, there are general factors that reduce the probability of war, e.g. increased trade between the nations, democratic governance, lack of stealable resources etc. No two democracies have ever gone to war with each other, and the proportion of the planet that has democratic governments has increased over time and is still increasing. The frequency and scale of wars has decreased accordingly. It seems reasonably likely it will eventually reach zero. The probability a given person has of dying violently have been trending downwards for a millennium and is still continuing to decrease. These things demonstrate that war is not some sort of inevitable universal product of human nature, but rather a product of society and the international state of affairs.

This crisis seems to have focused the public on the topic of candidate's stances on war, which is playing very well for Bernie Sanders who was one of the few people in congress to vote against the Iraq war. In his speech in 2003 on the subject he rightly questioned the accuracy of the claims the Bush administration was making, and rightly predicted that invading Iraq would lead to the rise of an ISIS-like group that would cause the US problems. Biden, meanwhile, has been taking some flak, and rightly so, for his vote for the Iraq war and his bumbling and incorrect stances on the war issues at that time.

All they'll have to do is show political ads where Trump is publicly criticizing Obama about starting a war with Iran to get reelected, then show the recent bombs ordered by Trump flying over Iraq and Iran (because it WILL escalate), and it's curtails. He wrote the script for them.

[Starlight]

All they'll have to do is show political ads where Trump is publicly criticizing Obama about starting a war with Iran to get reelected, then show the recent bombs ordered by Trump flying over Iraq and Iran (because it WILL escalate), and it's curtails. He wrote the script for them.

I agree. The ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been polling abysmally for years now. People want the troops out of the middle east. The US public has no stomach for more war. Trump seems to have ignored the fact that the Bush administration spent 3 years doing propaganda about how they needed to attack Iraq before they finally did it. Trump by contrast has made zero effort to sell the US populace on the need for another war. If he gets to the election and the US is at war with Iran, Trump will likely lose the election badly.

Unlike you, I'm ever-optimistic that it won't escalate. As of today things are looking good in that regard, with Iran saying they're not going to retaliate further and Trump seems happy their strikes achieved nothing. On the whole it looks like Trump totally didn't understand what he was getting himself into by killing Soleimani and thought he could just add a feather to his cap for being tough on terrorists and wanted a repeat of the praise he got for killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I don't think Trump actually wants a full scale war with Iran, so I'm hoping he'll leave things as they are now and not escalate further.

[seanD]

I agree. The ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been polling abysmally for years now. People want the troops out of the middle east. The US public has no stomach for more war. Trump seems to have ignored the fact that the Bush administration spent 3 years doing propaganda about how they needed to attack Iraq before they finally did it. Trump by contrast has made zero effort to sell the US populace on the need for another war. If he gets to the election and the US is at war with Iran, Trump will likely lose the election badly.

Unlike you, I'm ever-optimistic that it won't escalate. As of today things are looking good in that regard, with Iran saying they're not going to retaliate further and Trump seems happy their strikes achieved nothing. On the whole it looks like Trump totally didn't understand what he was getting himself into by killing Soleimani and thought he could just add a feather to his cap for being tough on terrorists and wanted a repeat of the praise he got for killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I don't think Trump actually wants a full scale war with Iran, so I'm hoping he'll leave things as they are now and not escalate further.

Can you give me the source where Iran says they won't retaliate any further?

Only way he could salvage this is if he somehow turns it around strikes a deal with them. But that would be the greatest feat of 4-D chess I've ever seen. If by miracle that happens it would have to take place after he's acquitted because the senator hawks would never settle for such an atrocity.