US bombs Iraqi military targets

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneSheep

Guest

A review of the order of events, this one being the latest in a series:

September 10: Trump fires John Bolton, an AIPAC-affilitated extremist, from his position as National Security Advisor.

September 24: Nancy Pelosi, well-supported by AIPAC and affiliates, begins formal inquiry into impeachment of Donald Trump.

October 7th: Trump says he will pull troops out of Syria, angering AIPAC and its affiliates.

October 11: Trump sends troops to Saudi Arabia after Saudi oil facility is bombed. This was a perfect opportunity for Trump to bomb Iran without making it look like it was doing it for Israel.

October 21: After getting a lot of criticism from AIPAC-controlled congress, Trump backpedals and decides to keep troops in Syria, near the border with Israel (and Jordan, just for appearances sake probably).

November 18: As impeachment is becoming increasingly possible, the Trump administration declares Israeli settlements “not illegal”, a position clearly hoping to appeal to AIPAC. This unprecedented move was against the Geneva convention and the tenets of the UN, and opposed by every other world nation.

December 11: Trump signs an executive order long pushed by right-wing groups that want to limit the ability for students on college campuses to promote BDS and right to criticize Israeli apartheid-type policies and persecution of Palestinians.

December 31: Against the policy of getting America out of endless wars, Trump now bombs supposedly Iranian-backed military facilities/weaponry in Iraq, even though it was largely Iran’s effort that defeated ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

What is clear to me is that pulling the troops out of Syria was “strike three”, with strike one being getting rid of Bolton and strike two being failure to bomb Iran when it was possible to do so for the sake of Saudi Arabia rather than Israel.

Things to remember are (1) that AIPAC and affiliates are all well-intended and are not “enemies” in any way. They have their hearts in the right place, it is only their means that are a problem. (2) AIPAC and affiliates are indeed “kingmakers/kingbreakers” in Washington, as evidenced by the lack of second terms for Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush. Donald Trump definitely knows these things and is behaving accordingly.

For more information, start about 20 minutes in on this one:

 
I think there was another thread on this somewhere, I can not readily find it but there seems to have been another strike on the Baghdad airport in the past few hours but what has happened is not clear yet. So, just posting here in case we find out more info and it is of importance. At this moment, actually, it’s not clear who carried out the strike from all I have read and the big news agencies (BBC, etc.) may not have this news yet but plenty of sources do say, it did happen.

Here is a source:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...ts-fired-baghdad-airport-200102232817666.html
 
Last edited:
Trump’s rationale:
“At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani,” a Pentagon statement said.

“This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
Click to expand...

There we go, the same justification Bush had for attacking Iraq. “Preemptive war”.

I don’t get it. Trump is not fundraising, he must be simply trying to keep most of the AIPAC et al. money flowing in his direction. Either that, or some power behind the scenes is indicating that if he does not do this, some republicans will side with the dems at the Senate impeachment trial.

This is not our war, and this is definitely not a Christian approach to problem-solving. It is murder.

Thanks for the heads-up Victoria, this is very disturbing. Our soldiers are again going to be stuck dying for something other than US defense.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Thanks for posting this, Victoria. You’ve been on top of things in that area and it is appreciated.

And then there is North Korea to worry about too. Eegads.
 
OneSheep said:
Either that, or some power behind the scenes is indicating that if he does not do this, some republicans will side with the dems at the Senate impeachment trial.
Click to expand...
We’ve been meddling in Middle East for decades. We’ve created nearly every problem there under multiple Presidents. There’s something greater than one man at work here. It’s like we’ve been staging WWIII for 30 years.
 
Last edited:
As people are saying ‘it is hard to understand how big this is’

There are going to be repercussions. https://www.aljazeera.com/
Far beyond a drastic increase in the oil price.
It was not just targeting a terrorist suspect, it was also targeting a touted next supreme leader. Thats a whole new dimension in these actions.
 
Last edited:
LateranBasilica said:
As people are saying ‘it is hard to understand how big this is’

There are going to be repercussions. https://www.aljazeera.com/
Far beyond a drastic increase in the oil price.
It was not just targeting a terrorist suspect, it was also targeting a touted next supreme leader. Thats a whole new dimension in these actions.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, he was not a terrorist suspect, and even if he was a suspect, this was a completely immoral act on the part of the US.

As Catholics, we are to condemn it.
 
Theo520 said:
I disagree, he was a known terrorist who held an official military position in Iran.
Click to expand...
See, the IRGC, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp may have been designated as a “terrorist” organization, if that is so, at least, from the USA view, we had the right to go in.

Maybe 1,000 protesters killed in Iran, people gassed in Syria. There are a number of people who say Soleimani is connected to a lot of the problems over there like this, not just hitting US and coalition soldiers with IEDs, though, that number is thought to be over 600 dead.

And other attacks being imminently planned apparently.

Al Jazeera, cited above in another post, is somewhat Qatari influenced, they have their point of view too, it may well be friendly to Iran, al Jazeera is not often friendly to U S interests. They still are very good at reporting the news though, imho.
 
Victoria33 said:
See, the IRGC, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp may have been designated as a “terrorist” organization, if that is so, at least, from the USA view, we had the right to go in.
Click to expand...
Who else has made that designation? The UN? Iraq?
 
ProVobis said:
I’ll bet there’s a lot of them, Does this justify a war?
Click to expand...
That’s only in your mind, that this is war and the US started it.

We retaliated against increasing Iran provocations. We could have just as easily lost the embassy the other day.

It is the world’s experience that bullies (Iran) often need to be confronted for the provocation to stop. That’s also my personal experience.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
That’s only in your mind, that this is war and the US started it.
Click to expand...
Assassinations have been known to start major wars. But you know that.
It is the world’s experience that bullies (Iran) often need to be confronted for the provocation to stop.
Click to expand...
I thought the increased sanctions were designed so that the people would be motivated to rise up to their leaders and stop this bullying.
 
Last edited:
OneSheep said:
AFAIK, he was not a terrorist suspect, and even if he was a suspect, this was a completely immoral act on the part of the US.

As Catholics, we are to condemn it
Click to expand...
As I said,
it was not just targeting a terrorist suspect such as others that have been targeted. This is quite a different arena of aggression.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top