JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[tech37]

You've never said what the big picture goal is. Not once. I'd bet we have the same big picture goal.

Bliss a fan.. sheer bliss

Another time, watching Cuse/ND

[Typical Lax Dad]

That's all great, seacoaster. But no one is discussing the end game.

Can anyone here paint the picture of what "winning" looks like with Iran and the US?

I honestly believe there is zero way to win in the ME, only calm tempers, if only for a short time. The only thing that will create a win-win for the entire world WRT to the chaotic ME is either (i) everyone converts to Islam and even that would be hardly enough, (ii) the ME gains multiple leaders that promote status quo on land/religious freedom on boundaries and call some type of truce, or (iii) the oil purchases from the major 3 dries up (no one needs them any longer) in this region, forcing them to adapt to more manufacturing, hydroponics, and desalinization opportunities. Our global dependence on oil just seems like we are enabling their behavior.

Like any counselor of shrink will tell you...you can not change the behavior of someone unwilling to change, you can only control and change your own behavior. The rub, for as many things as we have tried passive and aggressive (collectively with allies) these countries always seem to just want to fight like someone stole their ball on the school yard (minimized analogy for effect).

We still need a presence, if for no other reason to keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

What does “winning the ME” even mean? What does multiple leaders in the ME mean? In what way is the ME our enemy?

[a fan]

You've never said what the big picture goal is. Not once. I'd bet we have the same big picture goal.

Bliss a fan.. sheer bliss

Another time, watching Cuse/ND

Cool. Enjoy the game!

[Kismet]

Vintage IMPOTUS Blithering idiot.

Q: “Do you have an exit strategy for Iran if war does break out?”

Trump: “I don’t need exit strategies.”

Does he realize that his traditional exit strategies -- bankruptcy and divorce -- aren't really options here?

For those keeping track of deployments

3,500 82nd Airborne to Baghdad and Kuwait
3,300 173rd Airborne to Lebanon (from base in Italy)
2,600 126th Marine Expeditionary Unit on USS Bataan from Western Med to Arabian Sea

that's 10,000+ over what has already been sent in recent months. So much for getting out of the ME - DOPUS chimes in after 18 holes today

"We have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

So there!!

[3rdPersonPlural]

So the master of Middle Eastern sectarian relations and politics (Trump) decided to eliminate Soleimani? With a plan to stabilize the ME or get us out of this mess?

Fullfilling a promise of a disproportionate response to Iran (or proxy) killing an American. Trump considers Iraq & Syria a liability & lost cause, which can only continue to bleed us. He's doing everything he can to avoid getting sucked into nation building. We're concentrating our enduring forces in a few joint host nation bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE & SA (temporarily). He wants us out of Syria asap & our presence in Iraq is contingent on the Iraqis protecting them. The troops headed that way are for force protection from Iranian proxy reprisals & escalatory attacks.

Good plan! Really, if he was taking steps to make that happen, I'd be cheering.

But he up and assassinates the figurehead of a proud nations pride. I know that sounds silly, but that's what he did on his way out the door.

Did he think this through, or did he do this because of news cycles?

Or was it that Intel said he'd be at the airport and he is a bad man, and Trump jumped?

It was a ripe target of opportunity & the promised disproportionate response to the killing of an American.
1 Reaper, firing 4 Hellfires, dispatched 8 terrorist souls to paradise, including Iran's most effective & charismatic leader, his Iraqi PMF leader. plus the leaders of Iraqi PMF component Shia militias. The shot was worth taking (imho).

No. Whacking the wasps nest on your way out is a very BAD way to get out cleanly. Now this fellow who resents advice and has a crimped understanding of world affairs has to navigate us through an asymmetrical war that might last for decades with a nation that has prepared to square up against us. Not our armed forces, OS. US!. You and I have been dragged into a situation of risk that we didn't ask for.

[old salt]

For those keeping track of deployments

3,500 82nd Airborne to Baghdad and Kuwait
750 in Baghdad. The rest staging in Kuwait.
3,300 173rd Airborne to Lebanon (from base in Italy)
Last report : entire unit still on alert in IT. 130-750 rifle company to battalion strength, planned for Embassy reinforcement in Lebanon. This is their normal mission as our EU based Quick Response Force.
2,600 126th Marine Expeditionary Unit on USS Bataan from Western Med to Arabian Sea
26th MEU sailed from E coast ports in late Dec on planned rotational deployment aboard 3 ships of the USS Bataan ARG, reported offshore Morocco last wk, bypassing planned exercise with Morocco, now in 6th Flt AOR (likely in the Med, heading for Suez).
With their embarked helo/V-22 wing, they train for diplomatic mission evac, from Med (Lebanon) or Persian Gulf (Iraq)
Should be an interesting transit through the Straits of Bab el Mandeb & Hormuz.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... ation.html

[old salt]

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... suleimani/

Special Representative for Iran, Brian H. Hook, told Al Arabiya that he had seen “all of the intelligence” on the action and suggested that “American personnel and facilities in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and beyond” were the planned targets.

Suleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” added a Pentagon statement, which called the strike a “decisive defensive” action aimed at deterring future Iranian attacks.

Targeting enemy commanders is lawful and we’ve done it before

On April 18, 1943, the United States targeted and destroyed the aircraft carrying Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the commander of Combined Fleet of the Imperial Japanese Navy, while it was preparing to land at Balalae Airfield on Bougainville in the Solomon Islands.

Admirals Chester W. Nimitz and William F. Halsey, Jr. — acting on decoded intercepts of Yamamoto’s planned itinerary, which had been read by Navy code breakers — authorized a joint force strike, led by long range Army Air Force P-38 Lightnings, part of AirSlos (Air Forces, Solomons), and commanded by Adm. Marc A. Mitscher.
The fighters waited over water near Yamamoto’s destination and ambushed the landing Japanese transport bombers.

It is unclear if President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized Operation Vengeance and there is no evidence trail pointing to his direct involvement.

Iran failed its fundamental obligation to protect diplomats and embassies
Iran has a documented history of intentionally refusing to comply with international law.
Forty years ago, on Nov. 4, 1979, the US Embassy in Teheran was seized and U.S. diplomats and consular personnel held hostage.
It is axiomatic that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between states than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies.

While in the current crisis the embassy was located in Iraq, not Iran, it is apparent that Iranian forces may have been involved.
The recent involvement of Iranian-backed militias in Baghdad rekindled concern that seizing U.S. diplomats and consular personnel would trigger another lengthy hostage crisis. This is an unacceptable risk in U.S. foreign policy.

The attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad occurred 40 years after the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran.

It has been suggested that the proximate cause of the 444-day Iran hostage crisis was the failure of President Jimmy Carter’s administration to remove all diplomatic personnel and close the embassy when the White House granted the deposed Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to enter the United States to receive care for terminal cancer.

President Carter apparently relied on an understanding or representations by Iran that it would honor established legal protections afforded to U.S. diplomats and Embassy staffers.

The Carter administration could have reduced the risk of the illegal Iranian acts had the embassy been closed down in anticipation of the admission of the Shah. U.S. personnel and classified documents could have been removed and protected from seizure and the spectacle of the hostage standoff.

Apparently, there were no contingency plans to respond even though President Carter was concerned about the risk presented by his reluctant decision to allow the Shah of Iran to enter the United States in the fall of 1979.

Now what?
In addition to combatants and their civilian contractors, it is possible that reprisal attacks by Iran could be aimed at:
Civilian airliners flying in the Gulf region or possibly worldwide, as in the case of Pan Am 103. It was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all on board on Dec. 21, 1988. It was traced back to Libyan operatives, their motive most likely as a reprisal for losing a series of scuffles with the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Sidra dating back to 1981.
Commercial surface vessels in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the adjacent waters near the coast of Iran. There had been multiple attacks on tankers in these waters during 2019. Also, during the Tanker War of the late 1980s, there were attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf by both Iraq and Iran, including the use of mines and missiles. The U.S. Navy destroyed Iranian ships and platforms involved in the attacks on merchant ships and U.S. warships.
Warships, most likely U.S. Navy vessels, in the Persian Gulf.
Environmental damage, such as intentional pollution of waters or land. Iraq engaged in similar destructive conduct during its Gulf War with the U.S.-led coalition.
Cyberattacks on US. agencies and firms, which likely would trigger retaliatory cyber strikes targeting Iranian nuclear enterprises and other assets important to Tehran.
Terror attacks on civilian population centers and transportation systems, particularly in Western Europe, Japan, and possibly the United States.

But the White House has shown with the assassination of Suleimani that it can move swiftly, nimbly and decisively to the right along the spectrum of conflict.

Any Iranian strategist now needs to calculate carefully the moves Tehran should make, understanding that the U.S. has the worldwide capacity to keep escalating the stakes, including the destruction of their economy, nuclear infrastructure and large portions of their armed forces.

Capt. Lawrence Brennan (retired)
A retired Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps captain, Lawrence B. Brennan is an adjunct professor of Admiralty and International Maritime Law at Fordham Law School. ...He was a federal litigator for the U.S. Department of Justice. ...he also was the attorney on board the aircraft carrier Nimitz when it launched eight helicopters as part of the Iranian hostage rescue mission on 24 April 1980. ...He spent more than three decades implementing, drafting and teaching the Rules of Engagement...

[njbill]

In all the key board pounding and talking head commentaries, two things are clear. One, by breaching the Iran nuclear deal (euphemistically called "pulling out" by the Trumpists), Trump set in motion the series of events that has lead to Soleimani's assassination. If Trump hadn't reneged on the agreement, it is highly likely Iran would not have taken the aggressive actions it has lately. Two, by killing Soleimani, Trump has made it nearly impossible for there to be any meaningful diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for the foreseeable future. How is anything going to get resolved without diplomacy?

We are now seeing a furious effort by the Administration and its surrogates to claim there were "imminent threats" against Americans. The problem is the boy who cried wolf syndrome. The Administration has such an abysmal record of prevarication and even fabrication that one reasonably disbelieves anything that is said. Perhaps at some point in the future historians will be able to assess the veracity of these "imminent threat" claims, but for now most of the country reasonably is quite skeptical.

Regardless of how any of this plays out in the short and long term, unless Trump received and carefully considered expert advice on the possible ramifications of this assassination, the decision has to be regarded as an exceedingly reckless act. I suspect Trump went off half cocked, as he always does, and that he didn't ask for, let alone consider, the potential long-term consequences. If nothing terrible happens, it will be because Trump simply got lucky. Lucky when he played with fire with American and allied lives, with world peace, and with the world economy. That is an extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible way for the commander in chief to act. Essentially, he's played Russian roulette with the safety of the country and the world.

[old salt]

Now Trump's a bad CinC because he believed his intel community & acted upon their findings.

[Trinity]

Apparently there are no business opportunities for Trump in Iran.

[seacoaster]

In all the key board pounding and talking head commentaries, two things are clear. One, by breaching the Iran nuclear deal (euphemistically called "pulling out" by the Trumpists), Trump set in motion the series of events that has lead to Soleimani's assassination. If Trump hadn't reneged on the agreement, it is highly likely Iran would not have taken the aggressive actions it has lately. Two, by killing Soleimani, Trump has made it nearly impossible for there to be any meaningful diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran for the foreseeable future. How is anything going to get resolved without diplomacy?

We are now seeing a furious effort by the Administration and its surrogates to claim there were "imminent threats" against Americans. The problem is the boy who cried wolf syndrome. The Administration has such an abysmal record of prevarication and even fabrication that one reasonably disbelieves anything that is said. Perhaps at some point in the future historians will be able to assess the veracity of these "imminent threat" claims, but for now most of the country reasonably is quite skeptical.

Regardless of how any of this plays out in the short and long term, unless Trump received and carefully considered expert advice on the possible ramifications of this assassination, the decision has to be regarded as an exceedingly reckless act. I suspect Trump went off half cocked, as he always does, and that he didn't ask for, let alone consider, the potential long-term consequences. If nothing terrible happens, it will be because Trump simply got lucky. Lucky when he played with fire with American and allied lives, with world peace, and with the world economy. That is an extraordinarily dangerous and irresponsible way for the commander in chief to act. Essentially, he's played Russian roulette with the safety of the country and the world.

Yes, +1. This seems like a reasonable set of conclusions based on what we know of events, and the President.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about how this will impact our relationship with Iraq too.

[seacoaster]

Iraq:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mi ... story.html

[tech37]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

[youthathletics]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

[Typical Lax Dad]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

Makes you wonder how people survived before social media.

[MDlaxfan76]

Now Trump's a bad CinC because he believed his intel community & acted upon their findings.

Which findings and which advisors?

Who in this Administration actually advised Trump that this was the right strategic step to take and why?

What was their rationale and what was their recommended gameplan about the likely ramification scenarios?

And who advised against it and why?

None of this is apparent.
The NSC staffing is decimated, our diplomatic corps is decimated, the "generals", who guys like you were telling us would keep things under control, are no longer there.

So, who were these advisors listened to and what was their advice?
And who advised against it?

[youthathletics]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

Makes you wonder how people survived before social media.

That's just it, they 'survived', now they want to live.

[Typical Lax Dad]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

Makes you wonder how people survived before social media.

That's just it, they 'survived', now they want to live.

You need to get out more. You have been brainwashed by propaganda. It’s not that simple.



There, when they talk about life in America, poor people are over represented in their reporting. I don’t want to live there but it’s not all peasants.

[tech37]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

love your optimism youth...

[youthathletics]

BARHAM SALEH’S THREAT TO RESIGN AMID THE BONFIRES OF IRAQ’S CRISIS

https://1001iraqithoughts.com/2020/01/0 ... qs-crisis/

Could this be any more complicated?

It actually simplifies it and proves that the internal wars of the ME countries are primarily internal conflicts of power between religion and politics......and religion often prevails because the people of the ME are primarily Muslim. And that does not sit well when political people want power.

You can almost see a parallel between the years of ME conflict/protesting and what is going in Hong Kong. The more people learn (the rise of the internet/social media) the more 'the people' want freedom/free will.

Pain causes people to pivot, let's hope in the right direction.

Makes you wonder how people survived before social media.

That's just it, they 'survived', now they want to live.

You need to get out more. You have been brainwashed by propaganda. It’s not that simple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

There, when they talk about life in America, poor people are over represented in their reporting. I don’t want to live there but it’s not all peasants.

I am quite aware of that, my reply was all about power and the fighting/wars in the ME for thousands of years, not business and major city life.