I guess assassinating Soleimani didn't deter Iran.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...on-plot-413831
Trump lied again. There was no imminent threat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/u...ni-strike.html
I guess assassinating Soleimani didn't deter Iran.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...on-plot-413831
Overt state assassination is a brutally effective tactic, but not a very good strategy.
Was it worth it?
What exactly did the US get that was worth $8 trillion and thousands of US dead?
War is above all a business
And the war on terror was all about grabbing Iraqi oil and enriching the military industrial complex and its investors
Mission Accomplished
India and China are by far the biggest importers of Iraqi oil.
These two countries exports went down with the war in Ukraine.
But they are still the largest exporters.
This is mission accomplished? These plans can go completely sideways and they often do.
Last edited by pgardn; 01-08-2023 at 01:27 PM.
Maybe -
but we didn't grab the oil -
we did what we always do -
we commit evil -
then try to claim to be the good guy and that we did it for honorable reasons ...
It all really began when Saddam invaded Kuwait and was ready to move into Saudi Arabia. This would have destabiilized world old prices. We were not the only ones that wanted Saddam out of Kuwait. Then came the punishment involving wiping out the Iraqi army who Saddam basically sacrificed like the Russians do with their people. We made sure they did not have an army that could do this again. This was really the start. Islamic terrorists actually caused Saddam problems.
And this was well before the twin towers fell. Leaving out this background is disingenuous imo when looking at the history of the conflict. Now that we know there were no weapons of mass destruction that the second Bush used as an excuse clearly must take into account the things that happened before. Especially in this case. The first Bush made sure not to destabilize Iraq completely. He knew the vacuum that would be left by Saddam would be a problem the US wanted nothing to do with.
Tell that to Ukrainians. Tell that to Putin.
I dont think we are disagreeing- however-
we also commit evil- we may rationalize/justify it and pretend we are the good guys-
(and sometimes we are)
but we also are at least HALF guilty…it takes two to go to war
I fully realize our foreign affair adventures have been not all been squeaky clean.
I also fully realize that we will do what it takes to keep markets and trade open.
We are regularly running our Navy through the South China Sea to let the Chinese know these are international waters and we will send our commercial shipping through these areas. We will keep the Straits of Hormuz open. We will keep the Suez Canal open, we will keep the Panama Canal open. We dont own these places but they are extremely important for trade and our economy as well as many of our allies.
Bottom line: we will make economics a big part of our foreign policy thus our projection of power is involved. But we also run into adventures we dont need to get into. And we also do some incredibly good humanitarian acts that just cost us money but lead to more trust. And sometimes it gets very complicated deciding when we need to keep our nose out of situations. Looking back on situations that have already occurred is easy to define us a good and bad. Looking forward when situations are changing is difficult. Remember there are Republicans and a group of Democrats that think we should have zero involvement in Ukraine. Depending on how it ends up people will then start to see good moves and bad moves we have made.
I'm not Geraldo, dude. This line seems off.
You have to be explained how assassinations have been strategically implemented and shown dramatic success in both locations? Okay. I will spell it out clearly.
Taking out the leader of an ins ution can have humongous strategic impact in general; it's Ukraine and they are at war. Putin strategically assassinates all opposition and has seen it keep him in power. This is par the course for many autocratic regimes.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 01-10-2023 at 01:55 AM.
well, thanks for the explanation. it's worth roughly what you charged for it.
More than you posited considering you won't stand by it because your ass is as you say chapped.
Find a better argument than assassination is not effective strategically. It's plain ignorant, wine. I get why you want to distance from it.
It depends on the results. US troops are still being attacked by Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria, so the strategic result of killing Sulaiman would appear to be nil.
Paradoxically, the US is supporting Iran's proxies in Iraq and has no clear military or political mission in Iraq or Syria, except perhaps to dangle US troops as bait for attack..
https://www.theamericanconservative....raq-and-syria/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)