TRUMP, What the hell is going on

[Wolf]

I must respond but without details - sorry to other posters.
Do I assume by your first comment you are claiming operation military experience/superiority?
1. You are indeed very, very wrong on a level way above your pay-grade I'd bet - if you want to be better informed strategically I'd suggest public commentary by RUSI, Janes, and SMI type conferences etc might be a good non-sensitive start.
2. The USA, UK and NATO will always closely follow and go to great lengths to follow 'Geneva' and I never suggested otherwise I merely pointed out that the asymmetric nature faced it provides an advantage to the aggressor who does not feel the need to conform the same 'rules of engagement'.
3. Wrong a few posts early it was suggested a car accident could be arranged and covert operations would give the deniable opportunity you desire. Deniability was clearly not the objective and was the safest and most effective action that avoided risk to service personnel and potentially inhumane outcome.

Hobbit, said
"Wow! As well as a (1) superb economist, an intelligence (2) analyst/operative. I think you've taken some comments too literally. The US funds, and has funded, a number of indigenous groups in various countries in the fight against terror and drugs. Not James Bond-esqe or silly movie plots but honest to (3a) goodness boots on the ground supported by 'advisors' from the US.... (3b) but you knew that didn't you. "

1 Thanks for the insult, I though we played the ball not the person - expertise recognised internationally.
2. Yep 4 decades of simulation and modelling building originating with military equipment with years as HoD of relevant organisation
3. (a) Technology and power projection capability avoids foolish endangerment of other lives when indiscriminate use of mines, RPG's in civilian vehicles are the chosen opposition.
3. (b) As per my reply to Wolf in 1 above!

OK. so as I always state I have just given my opinions and added a rebuttal which may be unpopular/arrogant; so be it.

Oh dear... I did write in my post I maybe wrong but that's how it reads and its how your posts came across.. But yes your right I spent a number of years in the military but I wasn't making this a dick waving contest however that's exactly the pathetic level you've dragged it down to by suggesting I'm wrong on a level way above my pay grade, especially as you don't have a clue what my pay grade was and what my role was strategically as you put it and its something i won't be dragged into discussing my exact role on an open Internet forum, its not the place for it. All you've done there is show arrogance and imo weakness in your ability to stand your ground with resorting to try an belittle someone without knowing a thing about them.

In past you've posted some very valid and interesting point's in other threads, but with this last post you've highlighted nothing but arrogance and an inability to conduct yourself in a manner that could better counter argue posts/comments. Nobody was playing the poster with their previous posts, but merely responding to what was written with their own views.

 

[Foxholer]

...
2. The USA, UK and NATO will always closely follow and go to great lengths to follow 'Geneva' and I never suggested otherwise I merely pointed out that the asymmetric nature faced provides an advantage to the aggressor who does not feel the need to conform the same 'rules of engagement'.
...

From a BBC article...
But the noted international legal scholar, Notre Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell, has this view of the legal implications:

"Pre-emptive self defence is never a legal justification for assassination. Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self defence as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack," she said.

"The use of a drone to kill Iranian Gen Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad was not in response to an armed attack on the United States. Iran has not attacked the sovereign territory of the United States," she said.

"In this case, the United States has not only committed an extrajudicial killing, it has carried out an unlawful attack within Iraq."

 

[Old Skier]

From a BBC article...
But the noted international legal scholar, Notre Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell, has this view of the legal implications:

"Pre-emptive self defence is never a legal justification for assassination. Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self defence as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack," she said.

"The use of a drone to kill Iranian Gen Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad was not in response to an armed attack on the United States. Iran has not attacked the sovereign territory of the United States," she said.

"In this case, the United States has not only committed an extrajudicial killing, it has carried out an unlawful attack within Iraq."

Other interpretations are available. ?

 

[drdel]

Oh dear... I did write in my post I maybe wrong but that's how it reads and its how your posts came across.. But yes your right I spent a number of years in the military but I wasn't making this a dick waving contest however that's exactly the pathetic level you've dragged it down to by suggesting I'm wrong on a level way above my pay grade, especially as you don't have a clue what my pay grade was and what my role was strategically as you put it and its something i won't be dragged into discussing my exact role on an open Internet forum, its not the place for it. All you've done there is show arrogance and imo weakness in your ability to stand your ground with resorting to try an belittle someone without knowing a thing about them.

In past you've posted some very valid and interesting point's in other threads, but with this last post you've highlighted nothing but arrogance and an inability to conduct yourself in a manner that could better counter argue posts/comments. Nobody was playing the poster with their previous posts, but merely responding to what was written with their own views.

I'm sorry if I came back harsh and I did apologise that it might be seen as arrogant. IMO, if you take the highlighted bold comments above your must admit that "belittlement" of some one you do not know is exactly what you attempted in the first paragraph of your post that I quoted when you sought to challenge my observations. Willy waving over and out.

 

[Wolf]

I'm sorry if I came back harsh and I did apologise that it might be seen as arrogant. IMO, if you take the highlighted bold comments above your must admit that "belittlement" of some one you do not know is exactly what you attempted in the first paragraph of your post that I quoted when you sought to challenge my observations. Willy waving over and out.

No its not what i attempted at all, hence in the very sentence i said I maybe wrong but its how it reads. I challenged your observation as this is an open forum to do such things and challenge each other and open discussion, you chose to make it more personal and showed a level of arrogance when you tried to enforce superiority by naming what you did in past . As I've said in previous posts you come across well and knowledgeable but this time im afraid you got it very wrong.

Anyways back to adult conversation..

 

[Foxholer]

Other interpretations are available. ?

Agreed! From the likes of Trump, or others who 'believe' that an aggressive military approach is the 'best' one!

 

[drdel]

From a BBC article...
But the noted international legal scholar, Notre Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell, has this view of the legal implications:

"Pre-emptive self defence is never a legal justification for assassination. Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self defence as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack," she said.

"The use of a drone to kill Iranian Gen Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad was not in response to an armed attack on the United States. Iran has not attacked the sovereign territory of the United States," she said.

"In this case, the United States has not only committed an extrajudicial killing, it has carried out an unlawful attack within Iraq."

A nation's (USA) embassy is considered sovereign and it may respond when attacked by another nation (Iran) operating illegally attacking targets outside its own borders in Iraq: Prof O'Connell may well be demonstrating the boundaries of her own sphere.

 

[Foxholer]

A nation's (USA) embassy is considered sovereign and it may respond when attacked by another nation...

I must have missed the announcement that a/the USA embassy had been 'attacked'. Got a reference?

......and it may respond when attacked by another nation...

That would seem to justify Iran's response!

Btw. This article would suggest Prof O'Connell is well qualified to make those comments! https://law.nd.edu/directory/mary-ellen-oconnell/

 

[ColchesterFC]

I must have missed the announcement that a/the USA embassy had been 'attacked'. Got a reference?

That would seem to justify Iran's response!

Btw. This article would suggest Prof O'Connell is well qualified to make those comments! https://law.nd.edu/directory/mary-ellen-oconnell/

Here you go....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50956111

 

[drdel]

I must have missed the announcement that a/the USA embassy had been 'attacked'. Got a reference?

That would seem to justify Iran's response!

Btw. This article would suggest Prof O'Connell is well qualified to make those comments! https://law.nd.edu/directory/mary-ellen-oconnell/

The USA did promise retaliation at the time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50956111

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The USA did promise retaliation at the time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50956111

So the US Attacked some Iran/Iraq - Militia , then someone “protested” against those attacks - I believe no one died in those protests and the US responded by killing an Iranian General ?

Doesn’t seem like a justifiable response - killing people because a building was attacked and no one was killed in that attack ?

So far it seems the US is doing the killing at the moment

 

[Foxholer]

So the US Attacked some Iran/Iraq - Militia , then someone “protested” against those attacks - I believe no one died in those protests and the US responded by killing an Iranian General ?

Doesn’t seem like a justifiable response - killing people because a building was attacked and no one was killed in that attack ?

So far it seems the US is doing the killing at the moment

And in a different country too - albeit, supposedly the one 'orchestrating' the protests.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Just one of the incidents. During the Iraq Freedom initiative USA service people killed (excluding those injured) by Iran or it's proxies and planned by the 'General' is abut 600+. That's prior to the missile strikes today.

sorry are you going back to the Iraq invasion ? And US deaths during that as justification?

Was there not a treaty signed since the invasion , which Trump pulled out of and of course left the country in a mess after the “US Led invasion” ( which was of course revenge for what happened in Kuwait imo )

 

[drdel]

From a BBC article...
But the noted international legal scholar, Notre Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell, has this view of the legal implications:

"Pre-emptive self defence is never a legal justification for assassination. Nothing is. The relevant law is the United Nations Charter, which defines self defence as a right to respond to an actual and significant armed attack," she said.

"The use of a drone to kill Iranian Gen Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad was not in response to an armed attack on the United States. Iran has not attacked the sovereign territory of the United States," she said.

"In this case, the United States has not only committed an extrajudicial killing, it has carried out an unlawful attack within Iraq."

An alternative narrative...
“But in this case, the events of the last few weeks make Trump’s legal case all the easier. Iran had already begun attacking U.S. personnel. It supported militias that had already shelled a U.S. base in Iraq, an assault that killed one defense contractor and injured several U.S. soldiers. It had ordered its militias to storm the U.S. Embassy. With access to extensive electronic and human intelligence, the Trump administration could conclude that Soleimani and his associates were planning yet further attacks on American forces. Soleimani had, after all, planned the devastating campaign against U.S. forces during the Iraq occupation, provided support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that have lethally attacked American troops in the Middle East, and devised the Iranian drone strike on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities.”
ref: John Yoo; Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

 

[Foxholer]

An alternative narrative...
“But in this case, the events of the last few weeks make Trump’s legal case all the easier....

'Easier', not watertight!

Oh. And I wouldn't expect much different from the guy that drew up the 'Torture Memos' - that 'justified' all sorts of 'enhanced interrogation' abuse, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation and binding in stress positions.

 

[SocketRocket]

 

[Foxholer]

She obviously didn't see pics of the thousands of folk mourning him. I'm certain they weren't all commanded to attend.

Oh, and just for 'balance' I've previously agreed with Bojo's comment about not regretting his demise.

 

[Wolf]

Well just watched Trump's live address, it doesn't matter who writes his speeches he is simply a terrible orator.

He started off saying alls well, then started issuing warnings to Iran and boasting of hiw much he has spent on defence and what rockets they have and how he has effectively taken out the worlds biggest terrorist but will respond further if Iran continues revenge attacks, then called us out along with yhe Germans, Russians and Chinese to stop backing Iran and join him. Thats merely a summary of what he said there was lot more, but it seems there's going to be a lot mire mileage in this yet as its effectively his way or no way.

 

[ColchesterFC]

 

[SocketRocket]

She obviously didn't see pics of the thousands of folk mourning him. I'm certain they weren't all commanded to attend.

Oh, and just for 'balance' I've previously agreed with Bojo's comment about not regretting his demise.

She probably did although theres a lot more people in Iran than those in that demonstration, they may not have all been instructed to attend but it would be naive in the extreme to believe such shows are not state managed.