Bloomberg vs Sanders
Michael Bloomberg is defending Trump. With that, I suggest Bloomberg’s slim chances of winning the Democratic nomination just got slimmer.
Rand Paul on the Death of Diplomacy
Please consider ‘The Death of Diplomacy’: Rand Paul Condemns Strike on Soleimani, Says There’s ‘No Scenario’ for U.S.-Iran Peace Talks Now
Rand Paul: “The question is will there be more or less of the attacks. So what happens with his death is we’re sending thousands of more troops, which are thousands of more targets for them to shoot at, and I think that it is hard to imagine that the Iranians are going to shrink now and say, ‘Oh, you killed our leading general who’s been a leader in our country for 20 years, but we’re going to do nothing?’ I also think with the death of Soleimani, you have the death of diplomacy. I don’t think there’s any chance that Iran will speak to us again on diplomacy. This is a long way away from where we were after the nuclear deal was signed under President Obama. I wasn’t a fan of details of the deal, but I was a fan of diplomacy, the same way I’ve been a fan of is the president talking to the government or North Korea, even though we haven’t been successful yet. But I do think that all talk is gone now. You cannot kill a major general of another country and expect that they are going to sit down at the table and discuss with you. There’s just no scenario that I see that happening now.”
Grave Violation
Without a doubt warmonger fools will point to who’s making the statement rather than the accuracy of it.
Anti-War Conservatives
Rand Paul Stands Up to Trump
Rand Paul on Pompeo
Rand Paul on Senate Democrat Hypocrites
Rand Paul on Heny Clay
Clay’s words still ring true: “A declaration of war is the highest and most awful exercise of sovereignty…such a vast and tremendous power ought not to be confided to the perilous exercise of one single man.”
Rand Paul on Undeclared Wars
“If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better.“
Rand Paul Question of the Day
“The question today is whether the assassination of Soleimani will expand the war to endanger the lives of every American soldier or diplomat in the Middle East?“
Rand Paul for President
I would vote for Rand Paul in a nanosecond.
Assassination?
I side with Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders and said so immediately.
However, the assassination label is not what’s important. Rather, it’s Trump’s blatantly stupid war-perpetuating policies that are important.
Meanwhile, the Left Wing “Liberal Media” Cheers War and Assassinations. The list includes CNN, NBC, CNBC, and USA Today.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Ask yourself this: What would Americans say if Iran dropped a missile on Pence’s head? Would they say, “Oh, well. It’s all part of the great struggle between us and them.” Or would Americans whine like the little, fragile bitches they are and scream about assassination, dirty Arabs (yeah, yeah, I know…Iranians are not Arabs but how Americans know that?), and death to all Muslims.
Fuck America and their double standards. No one has apologized for downing the Iranian Airbus and no one was punished or reprimanded.
Cui bono? (Hint: that Bloomberg and Trump agree on this). Put another way: what possible benefit is this for the US (to stir up the Iranian hornet’s nest)?
Another background source: https://www.moonofalabama.org
I read somewhere that S arrived in Iraq on the invitation of the US in order to discuss various terms, i.e. a friendly visit… Nope, it was the Iraqis:
“Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming.”
(from section on Home Page titled: “Iraqi Parliament Expels Foreign Militaries From Iraq.”)
If this was a Trump Admin hit (and not something done by rogue operatives inside or outside USG), I suspect the impeachment business is in play and that they were bullied into doing this on pain of losing a working majority in the Senate viz. any impeachment-related motions which just require a simple majority.
I’m generally against war too, but ever since WWII we’ve been bombing civilians to smithereens having abandoned the old model of only duking it out with armies in the field. Modern technologies leapfrogged over quaint delineations like fields, or even being on the ground altogether. We burned tens of thousands of people a night in huge fire bombings, not to mention far more with nuclear strikes in Japan.
So the notion that modern war should respect cultural treasures is, in this context, overly quaint. Indeed, if you are going to demoralize an opponent, you attack their cultural identity as well as their food and energy supplies. Indeed, war is waged mainly against regimes and populations these days, not so much as military to military.
In any case, what is most likely (imo) is that the USG is no longer in charge of all this. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if somehow the US did have to leave Iraq. That would deal the Neocons a real blow. (But it ain’t gonna happen…)
Try the second half of
The source of the text is a news outlet quoting representatives sat next to now caretaker pm Mahdi in conversation with the house speaker.
Personally I would want an audio recording or verification by Mahdi that those were his words. The original site seems credible, the text believable – I don’t like the idea of sowing doubt which is a result both ways from an unverified text, but if this is the nature of the US rift it should be followed up by someone.
Ha! I just posted a link to that site a little after you. Great minds think alike!
It is an unusual site. The author is blogging from Germany and he has a clear mind, is sharp on analysis, I would say pure intent. He is careful on what he includes in terms of it being verificable, not everything is correct though, and edges to the limit of sensible interpretation, openly because that is his proposition – to bring a more complete or wider view. He is anti empire, and so attracts a crowd of commenters from the left, but he doesn’t venture into or propose leftist theory in particular. So comments section there is sometimes owned, I mean testy if not hostile to anything associated with the right , sometimes pushing progressive ideas, but you get some very good insight there amongst the rest. Some further right sites also are at ease with his approach.
So an unknown quantity in a way, but definitely a service to us all because he does filter out and filter through important concepts, stories and so on. As with anything online, the responsibility is of the reader ultimately to cross check and verify what is being proposed, i.e. approach critically, and I don’t think b would object to that at all either.
Mish, you like what Rand Paul says now, but just wait 5 seconds. And 5 seconds after that.
“Michael Bloomberg is defending Trump. With that, I suggest Bloomberg’s slim chances of winning the Democratic nomination just got slimmer.”
How does zero get slimmer?
War crimes only apply to those that can be punished. It’s like being a child and playing monopoly with your older sister who’s also the banker. Oh, you rolled a 3? Let’s make that a 2 or ill smash your face.
I hope you and your sister have reconciled.
The most important thing Trump can do is to get oil prices up high enough that fracking will finally be profitable. Otherwise important Trump supporters including billionaire oil men and bankers are going to lose trillions. Iran, Venezuela, and Russian gas pipelines all have to be shutdown. War with Iran can only be helpful. Hopefully Iran will shut the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices will skyrocket. Buy Exxon and Tesla.
Yeah right at the expense of the entire economy and every voter in it. The US can’t handle high prices.
Who cares about the voters? This is about money.
If Trump were on better terms with the CIA, he could have approached the assignation of Soleimani with a bit more subtly, more like his BFF Putin would do – a touch of polonium in his food or a poison sting from a robotic insect. But subtly isn’t a Trump trait, is it?
The whole point of the assassination, like all of Trump’s doings, was to maximize TV impact. Silent poisonings doesn’t accomplish that. It’s not as if Trump cares one whit about whether Soleimani is alive or not. He was just a convenient prop for the theater.
Trump & Pompeo are actually telling us the exact truth. You simply need to hi-light what they are saying, so you can see it in reverse video:
We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war.
»We are trying to goad the Iranians into a foolish war, since the false flags over the past year have not worked out.«
We needed to strike to make sure that this imminent attack … was disrupted.
»Getting rid of him surreptitiously has not worked out. Good thing an amendment to the NDAA funding bill was cancelled (Demanding a Congressional vote for any war against Iran or attempts to decapitate its leadership).«
… strike was aimed at disrupting that plot, disrupting further aggression and we hope, setting the conditions for de-escalation as well.
»Hopefully this will make it impossible for them to back down and not escalate the situation.«
There will be no WW3 and no Iranian provocations. The Iranians are not going to give the neocons in Washington exactly what they want.
However, the rogue nation supposedly fighting terrorism has just raised up a tidal wave of new Jihadi enthusiasts across the Muslim world.
Ron Paul and/or Rand Paul for President/Vice-President. PLEASE GOD!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….
God gave you Obama and Trump. Not to mention Pelosi and Schumer. Give praise to His plan for you!
American voters gave us the politicians. Let us put the blame squarely on people who seem to not care about the type of slime they put in power.
Sad response indeed. Ive been reading this column for over 10 years and thanks to Mish Ive learned a tremendous amount. Lately attacks on other posters, bringing ones god into the discussion (in this case you mock God) I sense is of trolls trying to destroy this awesome blog and its posters but who knows. Imho, everyone has their god whether science, nfl or the God of the Bible because, I believe, we are matter and spiritual beings. Respectfully, please spare me your pot shots at Him in this forum. I’ll debate the existence of God any day but this is not the place. In the words of the prophet Johnny Cash, you can run on for a long time….
I know, year after year voters keep returning these evil morons to office. You would think they would learn and swear off voting like I have since 2003. Harder to maintain the illusions if nobody voted.
Qasem Soleimani had many powerful enemies. He has been commanding violent attacks on other countries – through proxies and with Iranian operatives.
Suppose two countries are in an armed conflict, then inflicting casualties on the other army is considered “ok”. Right?
Aren’t the US and Iran in some sort of slow motion armed conflict? Mostly, through proxies and allies. Yet, a conflict this is. Then, by extension, the case can be made Qasem Soleimani was killed, not assassinated.
Indeed Qasem Soleimani conducting many of these attacks via proxies or covertly makes things more complex. Yet, there is little doubt about his objectives and legacy.
All that said, this text doesn’t take a stance whether it was smart for the US to take this action.
As a side note, the philosophy and logic why it is ok to kill the other side operatives but not civilians is rather interesting to say the least.
Politicians will says what self-serves them best. People with agenda usually follow said agenda. Many of the opinions cited by@Mish are suspect.
Whether legit* killing or assassination depends whether the US and Iran are in state of war.
(*) Legit killing as generally accepted when countries are in war.
While I’m generally disgusted with the notion of legit killing, Mr Soleimani himself was busy at work killing and threatening others.
There is no evidence that Solemeni was involved in killing any Americans.
The trouble with that assessment, even if it was correct, is that it is symptomatic of creeping state authority in our own democracy.
The reasoning is this :
The national use of public force is consented/”consented” by the population on certain grounds. The first and foremost is that of moderation, that is to say the aim is to reduce violent conflict domestically and abroad by intermediation, prudence, diplomacy and judicious arbitration. That is to say public application of force is supposed to follow a strict set of reasonings and checks, open to public scrutiny for very good reason. Firstly the public are themselves subject to the results of the method , secondly the public are or should be in a position to intervene in the arrangements due to the openess of their nature. That can be via representation, election, protest, or in some countries you simply carry a gun at least as a reminder that you are free to use it if you feel you are being overly encroached upon.
Similar rules apply for international use of force, for similar reasons. Here the public is subject to the result of the decision to use public force against another country. This includes retaliation by the other country, through to being forced to the front line. There are rules established to formalise the opening of international conflict, amongst other they exist so that initiation of conflict is directly attributable to the leaders, and so to their public, and so to public consideration.
If one leader wishes to overtly attack another state or its representatives, it is expected that a case is presented to the public for initiating that act of war. That public can be international as well as domestic, it in fact always is because the rest of the world is indeed watching and judging.
If you ignore this step, its checks and balances, you are allowing your leader to attack you, because he is then able to place you in the line of fire of another without any consent or oversight of your own, or of the wider public.
You might not be concerned at that, maybe you are volunteering for the frontline already, maybe you are willing to offer up your family and friends and public to an unverified cause, an unchecked scenario.
Don’t you think you are being senseless and arrogant though then ?
What gives you that right ?
I will just simplify your confusion a little while I am at it.
(That one is not hard)
(…because as far I know Iran and the US are not formally at war, he was a political target not killed while in direct personal combat with US forces)
I just wonder why you try so hard to confuse this. Words have meanings, and those meanings apply.
Formal recognition of war changes the rules, and that changes the status of actors, and those actors no longer present themselves in the same way.
Soleimani was a state actor, so rules of engagement in force with that state apply.
The US can designate him exactly how it wishes, as you have done, but….
Soleimani was a state actor, so rules of engagement in force with that state apply.
To overide the formal status as is recognised internationally, by killing an official, is assassination.
By openly assassinating a person of state you are saying the formal rules that describe not being at war are worthless, that they are all a trick, that the international order of peace as we know it is a trick, that every country should re-examine its position with the US….
I mean, this is really for stupids no ?
“it’s Trump’s blatantly stupid war-perpetuating policies that are important.” —Mish.
I believe it is much bigger than that: it is Trump’s blatant stupidity that is important.
If one were a real leader, would you get headlines like this?
Esper contradicts Trump on targeting Iranian cultural sites: We ‘follow the laws of armed conflict’
Top general says letter suggesting US would withdraw troops from Iraq was a ‘mistake’
Trump’s just another punk like Obama and Bush,droning a mofo is like shooting him in the back,cowards pull that chit.El presidente bone spurs got no stomach for war and the Iranians no that,pussy.
Take out Osama Bin Laden and you are a hero, Take out a general and get criticized, now we have endless parade of ex military officers denying any good. Un believeable, remember the media are experts in the middle east! lol
“Take out Osama Bin Laden and you are a hero”
Only to fools, clowns and the most thoroughly well indoctrinated dittoheads.
Americans “taking out” guys in countries halfway around the world, are no more heroes than people from those parts “taking out” New York skyscrapers. What’s heroic, is speaking softly, and minding ones own business.
Taking out Bin Laden was a crime, as far as Pakistan was concerned. They couldn’t do anything to the US, but they locked up the doctor that identified him for at least 6 years. I don’t know but what he is still locked up.
Always worth fetching outside perspectives
Al Sadr reactivates his militia while forging regional alliance
I don’t share the summary at
that the US will avoid war with Iran now, but the rest of the article contradicts or provides a different view on a lot of what we are being presented.
Good Lord, hasn’t anyone here even bothered to independently figure out who this guy was before trying to sound educated in assessments over the stories?
He was in command of the ‘Quds Force’, tasked with extraterritorial operations. Peace mission? Seriously? Iraqis were just protesting Iranian presence in the country.
stillCJ zerohedge link : “Was trump playing 5D-chest after all (to remove troops from Irak (and Syria). I think most likely as he is a trained foxy businessman.
Trump is as dumb as a box of hammers. Don’t get your hopes up.
Trump is not calling the shots here. There’s a puppetmaster.
Solimani was arguably the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Am I supposed to be sorry Trump did something about him? Was this Trump’s plan all along? (Getting out of Iraq, that is. The story keeps changing).
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-army-tells-iraq-it-preparing-move-out
Would be nice, though.
SNAFU!
Soleimani’s crime was killing ISIS fighters, and we are not leaving Iraq. We didn’t construct a 104 acre embassy, the largest and most expensive in the world, to abandon it right away.
Besides, when is the last time our troops packed up and left a country after a war? We’re still in Kosovo, and as we’ve seen our Desert Storm departure was temporary. So maybe Panama in 1990? If you’re talking a real war it would be Vietnam in 1975. We don’t leave countries anymore.
you re still in Germany and Japan …..75 years later …Just imagine !
Other countries argue that the US is the most dangerous terrorist in the world, so you would not be sorry if they did something about it ?
You know where this leads to.
Terrorism is a catch all term used to de-legitimise people and countries so that they can be acted on outside of conventional rules of engagement.
Then you find you are inadvertently/”inadvertently” at war with a whole country, and its associates, though.
Really, “the most dangerous terrorist in the world”?
Odd as editor of this column, you have never mentioned his name until the last week, yet suddenly he is the World’s most dangerous terrorist.
I’m not saying he is a saint, far from it, but this is “Monday morning revisionism” at its worst, and only highlights how unprecedented this action was.
Can you tell us now who the new “most dangerous terrorist” in the World is before Trump blows him or her up? Otherwise we might just think you are rationalizing with hindsight.
Oh god Monosynaptic, stop using logic for christ’s sake.
If congress does not like the result then repeal the war powers act. That would be a better use of time than the fake impeachment.
No, we can’t do that the dems will be in charge one day and want their turn to blow stuff up (again).
“You cannot kill a major general of another country and expect that they are going to sit down at the table and discuss with you. “
C’mon. Russia shot down a Turkish fighter plane and the pilots a couple of years back. Turkey made some threats but now they are buddy-buddy again.
Everyone is replaceable and money talks, nobody walks.
INCREDIBLE what time does with peoples’ minds : it was actually Turkey shooting down russian plane !
Donnie fucked up, but there is still a chance to deescalate.
It is possible to de-escalate, but there is no intention to by the US. At best the US will take the knocks without replying.
Trump is using tactics that might fit trade wars, or hard business negotiations, but he cannot call Iran’s bluff by threatening the country. Iran does not work that way, and they are already fully aware of what the US is capable of.
Instead, Trump’s rhetoric is pushing millions of lives onto the balance, because he is promising a reaction to a future act Iran is almost certain to commit. He has therefore closed off his own future options. This is not good, it is not deterrence.
I say again there is no intention to de-escalate by US. This is about denying Iran nuclear capacity, Israel and US will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, because they would be at that moment strategically defeated. Without own nuclear option due to similar retaliatory strike, Israel will not be feared in conventional war, and Israel is basically outnumbered by its enemies in the middle-east.
If you follow the sequence of breaking of the nuclear pact with/by the US, the US is dominating the outcome and only offering very narrow terms for Iran to remain at peace. Those terms were near impossible for Iran before, and are not likely to be even looked at in future due to the assassination.
They don’t have any way of backing out of this one, but they do have some new grounds for impeachment that would stick.
Well Iran just hit US bases in Iraq, so there goes your theory.
It wasn’t a theory.