Counter-Currents
1,595 words
To share on social media, click the orange arrow floating on your screen.
A new year, a new war?
Last week, a US airstrike killed Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani. Hated by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America’s professional warmongers, Soleimani led Iran’s elite Quds force. (Quds is basically both Iran’s Navy SEALs and CIA.)
His assassination will upend the Middle East. Iranians mourn his death and vow vengeance. America continues to target Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. President Trump and other American leaders may claim they don’t want war, but that’s the goal for the neocons who hold Trump’s ear. They’ve dreamed of taking out the mullahs for years—they just need to provoke Iran into an attack that will push America into war.
The Soleimani assassination could trigger a series of events that could achieve the warmongers’ dream. The airstrike further destabilizes the region and puts America further into the Middle East quagmire. Trump won in 2016 on the promise he would end the stupid wars. Instead, he may end up starting the dumbest one of all.
Out of Trump’s many disappointing moves, the most pathetic is his embrace of the war hawks who opposed his candidacy. These neocons are now in the driver’s seat and taking the Trump movement along for the ride to war.
War with Iran is no certainty. Trump is too polarizing a figure to rally America into an Iraq-style invasion. The Democrats would be united against any attempt to send troops into Iran just because Trump would ask for it. The media would oppose it because Trump wanted it, just as they criticize the Soleimani strike because Trump ordered it. One of the few good features of a Balkanized America is that it can’t be rallied to war, short of a major terrorist attack on American soil.
Unfortunately, those who are advising Trump want to provoke Iran into ordering such an attack. Iran and its allies already have terrorist cells in the U.S.; it doesn’t take much to imagine what they could do. It’s quite possible that Iran could retaliate with a major terrorist attack on US soil. It’s also quite possible that the neocons would let such an attack happen, or even aid it, to get their war.
Soleimani’s assassination also makes the region more chaotic. Iraq’s parliament voted to kick America out of its country Sunday. America had to withdraw its forces from fighting ISIS to protect our bases and embassy within the Shiite areas of Iraq. The Soleimani strike may, ironically, strengthen Iran’s regional power if America chaotically departs from Iraq.
Meanwhile, Iran threatens to retaliate in massive fashion. Soleimani was Iran’s Douglas MacArthur. He was second only to the Ayatollah in foreign policy decisions and was Iran’s main link to Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels, and Iraq’s Shiite militias. He was instrumental in stopping ISIS’s spread in Syria and Iraq. Millions of Iranians took to the streets to mourn his death, demonstrating popular support for payback.
This is a shitstorm that doesn’t benefit America. Supporters of the strike have tried to hide their pro-war sentiments by saying the attack was done to prevent war. “We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war,” Trump said himself.
This claim is bolstered by the Pentagon’s assertions that they had ample evidence that Soleimani was planning a big attack on Americans. The generals even said the Iranian wanted to kidnap American diplomats! But Soleimani was always scheming, and it’s doubtful he had something new up his sleeve. According to non-Pentagon mouthpieces, the evidence for imminent attacks is “razor thin”—just like the evidence for Saddam Hussein’s mythical weapons of mass destruction.
When the globalists want war, they will conjure up all kinds of falsehoods and conspiracy theories to get their way. There’s no reason to think they’ve changed from their phony WMD days.
The other proffered reason to kill for Soleimani was revenge—either for dead Americans in the Iraq war or the recent embassy attack. On New Year’s Eve, Iraqi protesters—many of them Shiite militiamen—broke into the US embassy in Baghdad and wrecked the exterior. This affront to American power was in response to the US killing at least two dozen Iraqi militiamen in retaliation for the death of a military contractor. Trump decided someone needed to die for this attack. A few days later, Soleimani and a senior Shiite militia leader were killed.
Many conservatives said the blood of hundreds of dead American soldiers killed by Iranian-backed insurgents in Iraq cried out for Soleimani’s death. These soldiers were killed in a war we concluded—or were supposed to have concluded—nearly 10 years ago. Killing Soleimani to avenge the deaths of American soldiers is akin to assassinating Japanese generals in the 1950s or Vietnamese commanders in the 1980s. Those wars were over. You don’t do something like that—unless you want another war.
America also worked with these same blood-soaked militias when we stabilized Iraq in the late 2000s and armed them when they fought against ISIS just a few years ago. Without these militias, ISIS would’ve taken Baghdad. America now pays these former allies back with death from above.
So with America’s position more precarious in Iraq, Americans at home and abroad threatened by Iranian retaliation, oil prices rising, ISIS given room to grow, and a possible war on the horizon, it’s hard to see how American interests were served.
So who really benefits from the Soleimani strike?
It’s no surprise: Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Soleimani is a mortal enemy to both countries. Both see him as the man behind Iranian power in the region. He’s the man who saved the Assad regime in Syria and pushes Iranian power to every part of the Middle East. Israel particularly hated Soleimani for his support of Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia particularly hated him for his support of the Houthi rebels. Both countries wanted him dead to increase their own power and make their neighboring countries more subservient. They don’t care about its effect on ISIS or Iraq. It’s an added benefit if the Soleimani assassination leads to America invading Iran. Nothing would satisfy Israel or the Saudis more than a ravaged Iran.
Israel and the Saudis have immense influence over the Trump administration. Trump can’t stop talking about how hard he works for Israel. His son-in-law is text buddies with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. These two countries have gotten more from Trump than any president in history.
There is one upside to this stupid decision: we may be pushed out of Iraq. The Iraqi parliament wants us out, and so does Trump. America is halting its training of the Iraqi military in the wake of the tensions, and Trump insists the country is a big waste of money for the US. One can hope that tensions don’t escalate to war and the hubbub convinces Trump to leave the area for good. The president’s instincts are far superior to those of his advisers. He did pull most of our troops out of Syria and is negotiating with the Taliban to get our troops out of Afghanistan. He resisted calls to retaliate against Iran for a downed drone and other offenses last year. There are reasons to be optimistic that his instincts will stop war.
However, there are also reasons to be pessimistic. Trump’s vice president, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, and many of his military commanders want war. Many of the Fox News hosts Trump listens to—with the exception of Tucker Carlson—want war. Trump can probably convince his base to support war. MAGA Twitter took a time machine back to 2003 and returned with all the worst arguments for the Iraq War to defend Trump’s bellicosity against Iran. The real threat to America is thousands of miles away, not cartels at our border or the globalist deep state.
It is sad to see America’s populist-nationalist movement go full George W. Bush over Iran, but progress is never instant. Too many middle Americans have been duped into seeing Iran as the Islamist puppet master—even though most Islamists are Sunni extremists who hate Iran more than Israel. Anti-Islamic sentiment can be both a redpill and a bluepill. Nationalists can use it as a gateway to enlighten white Americans to the foreign forces destroying their country. Neocons exploit it to get white Americans to sign up for stupid wars.
Much work remains to make Middle Americans put their country first. Banishing foreign influence from the White House would be a good start.
In all this mess, identitarians should not allow ourselves to be sucked into Iran worship and other forms of cringenattery. The best argument against war is that it hurts America’s interests and will needlessly kill Americans. We don’t need to turn the enemy into the good guys to make this argument. Brandishing Iranian flags and hailing the ayatollah further ghettoizes us and undermines our arguments. Vietnam protesters made themselves hated by waving Vietcong flags. We should learn from history and not make the same mistake. To be effective, we’ve got to get out of the ghetto and appeal to the widest possible audience. We already know a corrupt elite controls our country. That same elite getting us into war should not make us fall into the trap of anti-Americanism.
Truly putting America First means opposing war with Iran. It’s that simple.
The Iran quagmire awaits to be played out. We can only hope Trump’s better instincts prevail over his wicked advisers. America can’t afford another Middle East adventure.
Especially one that only serves the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
34 comments
“…identitarians should not allow ourselves to be sucked into Iran worship…”
Agreed. But it should also not be outright hatred of Iran. By mentioning the word ‘culture’ in his ’52 targets’ tweet, Trump is taking it to another level.
Streetwalking for his (((masters))) doesn’t mean Trump should also stop using his head.
The same sentence you quoted I was a bit taken aback by, in an otherwise good article and I am a fan of Mr Hampton. The question is what did he mean by “worship”?
I have to say that in today’s world I rarely find people like the late General or Bashar al Assad.
These are men who stood up to the common enemy of us all.
Assad, an ophthalmologist, didn’t want to be President but, like the Tsar, it was familial death that caused him to have to be the leader. He spoke out on (((THEM))) more eloquently than any other world leader…to date. He defends Christians. In fact the Shia seem to be more humane than Sunnis, by far.
If one looks at Hezbollah and how they defend Christians it certainly is noteworthy.
A person’s religion is entirely their own matter. Christians, at least too many of them, today seem to worship ISRAEL. Iran had a leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who invited David Duke to his conference examining the “Holocaust” NO OTHER world leader would DARE that.
He is a very modest man as well.
Qassem Soleimani was a man rare by today’s standards. Extraordinarily rare.
No matter what religion, or not, that you follow, this man was a model of being a MAN.
Sadly while there plenty of males today there are few men.
American white males, today, tend to “worship” black sports stars and their wives also watch it and note their daughters see mom and dad WORSHIPING the black football players, for instance.
Iran hasn’t started a war in the last few centuries, at least.
America has attacked Iran many times. From supplying Saddam with weapons of mass destruction, which USA accused Assad of using but which he did not.
To the destruction of the Iranian economy and the mind-changing of the young people’s opinions through the broadcasting over the internet of Jewish media, what Americans lap up each and every day.
No one worships Iran, the most evil leader once said:
“We do not worship Iran we worship Allah; for patriotism is another word for paganism. I say let this land (of Iran) burn! I say let this land (of Iran) go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world!” (Imam Khomeini 1980 in Qum)
Strong words, yet his desire to see, as he perceived it, a world with honor, respect, and goodness, is admirable.
I can say this Qassem was an admirable man, and boy oh boy could we use men like that in our struggle here in the nation our ancestors developed.
“Patriotism is another word for paganism” – I’d never thought I’d agree with the Ayatollah, but as a pagan I heartily concur. Every folk and tribe once had its own religion, including the Persians, before people of the Ayatollah’s (or Muhammad’s) mindset came along. One universalism calls forth another, whether it’s Christianity, Islam, or communism, because when victory requires the whole world (see quote above), it’s a zero-sum game. Which is why it’s foolish to condemn the neo-cons while giving Muslims a free pass.
I was stationed for a year right near Iraq’s border with Iran, which was as porous as a twinkie. The Shia militias would receive weapons and training in Iran, then come over and lob rockets and mortars at us, preferably from a bongo truck outside some civilian’s house so that when we fired back, we’d be sure to kill innocents, while they’d be long gone. Very heroic. The kinds of things they did to their own, let alone to us or the Sunni, made me lose all respect for them. I don’t need media reports; I saw it with my own eyes. A eulogy for someone like Soleimani strikes me as preposterous, unless it’s coming from an Iranian.
When American troops die overseas, many on the dissident Right roll out some variety of “shouldn’t have been there” or “live by the sword, die by the sword.” But when the head of the Quds Force dies – and believe me, he was not in Iraq to hand out care packages to disabled children – we get maudlin tears over what a loss to the world it is. Spare me.
Hope is was worth the time you spent there to realize that it was time wasted.
Time wasted? Not at all. I was a neo-con when I deployed, and the scales had fallen from my eyes well before my return. But one can fight in the most pointless of wars and yet not regard it as time wasted. To quote from a passage in Brother War, my novel about WWI, in which my grandfather fought:
“He recalled, too, that other language they had spoken under the night sky, the language of men who have fought. It is a curious tongue, composed of tears and sighs, boisterous laughter and silent melancholy, with a thousand words for regret and no way to be insincere. No one may learn to speak it who does not have war for a tutor.”
So true. Some of the responses here are pathetic coming from alleged white men. I strongly suspect some of those whining about this butcher’s assassination are themselves mere keyboard ideologues. If they need “heroes” to look up to (which I confess I find rather strange in itself), why not ransack some of the legions from our European past? Why go cucking after some race alien?
Of course, the US and all white nations should get the hell out of the Middle East and let these squabbling savages kill each other to their hearts’ content. Especially now that Donald Trump has signed extensive oil and natural gas deregulation (which, I note, all leftists – and some white “nationalists” – have opposed on spurious “climate change” grounds {further note: natural gas use is good for fighting carbon-caused climate change, if the latter were occurring, which it isn’t}), the US does not need ME oil. That was the only even superficially legitimate reason for American involvement there.
But let’s not get carried away with “the enemy of our enemy is our friend” enthusiasms. NO country in the Middle East is the true friend of white genetic, cultural and national security preservationist interests. We don’t need any of them as our friends or as our enemies. All US forces should be pulled out of the Middle East (including Turkey); all US foreign aid should be terminated (everywhere, not just in the ME). We should wash our hands of all these people.
But WNs should be focusing on OUR situation, and especially the continuing immigration invasion, not which nasty Muslim we kill this week or next.
You yanks make war all over the planet from a thousand military bases, and take it as a given that you are entitled to be there. You rationize your monstrous behaviour any way you can.
Your USA is about to implode, and all you can do is support a vicious military mindset that murders hundreds of thousands of people thousands of miles from your own home.
The end is coming for you and all the rest of Israel’s lapdogs, and it cannot come too soon.
We South Africans way back then during the Cold War were in Angola under the banner of a, take note, preemptive strike. This made sense to me – defend my country from a direct threat because I did not want to become a citizen of a Soviet puppet state.
When the USA invaded Iraq with a totally different motive than us back then (including fabricated evidence) I remember from television pictures back then the strongest military in the world with the best weapons available stRiki-Eiking a third world country and I just remember pictures of Baghdad going up in flames.
A relative of mine called it a war crime. Then I read about Madeleine Albrights 500000 Iraqi children dead from sanctions was “worth it”. If I was an unsophisticated Iraqi, I would have had blind hate and murder in my heart against everything that is American. Especially if someone told me afterward it was a proxy war for Israel.
In Angola there also were a lot of backward and primitive cultures and soldiers and everything did not run smooth, same story with lobbing mortars and bombs against us and at each other, and learning mistakes were made in the beginning. But we respected our enemies and tried working with them according to the book according to the principles of a just war and tried to win the hearts and minds of the peoples caught up in the conflict. That what is happening there in the Middle-East would not have been our idea of a just war. So I don’t know, I am sorry., someone help me where am I getting it wrong.
For the sake of the audi lateram partem rule, I cannot really properly judge the situation, for I hardly hear the other side presenting their case what their big unhappiness is about, so who is busy lying for whom?
I just remember how dubious the USA decision makers were back then to us during our war against terrorism, how we were dropped in Angola while US oil companies were drilling for oil and supporting marxist Angola and today we have terrorists ruling our country, so where is the big drone strike against them and erstwhile Rhodesia? South Africa had good relations with Iran, one of our important oil suppliers during the sanction years (and helped us building the anti-sanction Sasol-Natref refineries), and that was before all this nonsens of Iraq wars and todays kind of conflict in the Middle-East and all these refugees of these wars streaming to Europa and Europa being associated with America and that did nout just fall out of heaven, so what actually is the correct chain of cause and effect here.
Wikipedia:
“Ties between the Iranian government under the Pahlavi dynasty and South Africa’s predominantly white government were close during apartheid. After Reza Shah abdicated in 1941, he exiled himself to South Africa then he died there in 1944. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi visited the country during the 1970s where he was received by B J Vorster.”
Very interesting, this abdication and exile to South Africa. That was when Britain annexed/stolen their oil and instituted a stooge as head of government and that is were I think a lot of unhappiness started in the collective memory of the Iranians.
|| “We do not worship Iran we worship Allah; for patriotism is another word for paganism. I say let this land (of Iran) burn! I say let this land (of Iran) go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world!” (Imam Khomeini 1980 in Qum) ||
Source?
It is likely a fabrication. Persian soil hosts some of the holiest sites in Shia Islam (Imam Reza Shrine and others). Moreover, even the most devout Shia Irani would not call for the desecration of Persepolis or the Tomb of Cyrus the Great. And if anybody declares that he should be kicked out of Iran no matter how devout or pious he is.
Therefore, it is unthinkable that Khomeini had uttered such words. One must be aware of the mischief propagated by characterless Iranian exiles who experience wet dreams that one day the oppressed people of Iran would rise and erase Islam from Persia.
Trump does not want the U.S. out of Iraq. Antiwar.com reports that he’s throwing his predictable tantrum and threatening Iraq with sanctions they won’t believe.
Well put. On my social media, without being specific, the paltry few pro trump connections I have are saying stuff like we should have taken out Iran when we did Iraq. Complete W Bush mindset. It shows how truly hopeless our position is if you ask me, that the base is so brainwashed. I want to argue and post links to mearsheimer and Walt, but frankly I realize I will only lose friends and probably my social media accounts and job!
“Anti-Islamic sentiment can be both a redpill and a bluepill. Nationalists can use it as a gateway to enlighten white Americans to the foreign forces destroying their country. Neocons exploit it to get white Americans to sign up for stupid wars.”
Well said. I just can’t get worked up about Islam and Muslims anymore. I don’t want them in the West…and that’s that. I’m sure I’d feel differently if I lived in Rotherham or Gothenburg, but in America anti-Muslim rhetoric only serves the domestic enemies of white Americans. I urge everyone in the dissident right to not vote for Trump. Vote libertarian, do a write in vote for Tulsi, whatever. As distasteful as it is to me to imagine Biden or Warren as president, we can’t reward Trump’s betrayal with another term.
I urge everyone in the dissident right to not vote for Trump. Vote libertarian, do a write in vote for Tulsi, whatever…
Borders are more important than any other issue.
You’re angry that Trump assassinated an Iranian Muslim, so you are proposing that rightists should retaliate by voting for open-borders candidates. That’s foolish.
A vote for some libertarian is a vote for the Democrats, who favor not only open borders but also a massive magnet, in the form of free healthcare, to draw millions more non-white immigrants north.
It’s depressing to recognize that American Mideast policy is centered on Israel, but that’s the world we’ve been living in since at least the 1970s. Trump can’t change that, even if he wanted to.
In any case, threats to punish Trump by electing Warren or Bloomberg should wait until a new Mideast war has actually started. I doubt it will.
I entirely agree.
I agree with this
But if you live in a deep red state such as I do, I believe we should send a message to the GOP that reflects our collective disapproval of their saber rattling.
I’ll just say it this way. I want Trump to win, because the alternative is immensely worse. However, I hope it is of the most razor thin margins, so that “right wing America” gets a hard dose of reality.
I don’t, because they never do. Your reading of Middle American and especially GOP psychology is wrong. The best thing would be a big Trump win, as that would signal that the {civic} nationalist takeover of the GOP is complete (and civic nationalism is probably a necessary red-pilling precursor to racial nationalism). A razor thin margin would keep the Never-Trumper RINOs thinking they have a chance to retake the party, and should therefore remain in GOP politics. A substantial Trump victory would send the RINOs into exile, and the neocons scurrying back to their ancestral Democratic home.
Perfectly said.
EVERY Democrat stands now for open borders (ie, abolishing ICE and zero deportations, which is effectively open borders). They also stand for socialism – and even worse – EXTENDING THAT SOCIALISM TO ANYONE WITHIN AMERICA’S BORDERS (and probably someday, by its own logic, to the entire world).
Open Borders alone = death of what’s left of America. Open Borders +Medicare for the planet = death for America + imminent bankruptcy for Middle Americans. No thanks.
I always found it kind of strange when American nationalists get really into the whole anti-Muslim thing and “Deus Vult” posting, considering Muslim peoples are not really a significant demographic problem for the US (aside from maybe Minnesota) and the main immigrant group is overwhelmingly Catholic, and often seems to stem more from Bush-era neocon propaganda than the kinds of real life problems Europeans face with Muslim ethnic groups.
The Sunni-Shia distinction also seems to go over a lot of Americans’ heads, along with the Arab-Persian ethnic rift and fact that Jihadis like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are not only Sunnis, but Sunnis of the Salafi/Wahabi current intrinsically tied to the House of Saud, i.e the Second Greatest Ally, an authoritarian Islamic monarchy whose alliance with the US makes an utter farce of any “muh democracy and freedum” moralising against Iran or anyone else. But regardless of that, Jihadis, secular Arab nationalists, and Shia Iran all seemed to get lumped together as stereotypical towelheaded terrorists in American popular consciousness.
Trump is Crassus
Trump is the last patriot (albeit a rather ineffective one).
As a dilettante military aficionado, I have been following the life and career of Gen. Soleimani for quite some time. I’ve first heard about him in 2011, back before he was even a blip on the radar of the English language military related infosphere. He was certainly an interesting figure who gave off an aura of competence and achievement. I’ve read some of his translated public speeches, as well as western analytical reports detailing his character and activities. By the time of his death, although few Americans have even heard of him, he was a figure of paramount significance in diplomatic and intelligence circles.
However, he struck me as a man who let his fame and popularity go to his head. Being a media celebrity in his home country, he basked in the fame and adulation it gave him and revealed far too much of his personal intentions in his speeches, which I’m sure were picked up on by Western military analysts.
A person of his stature should have been perfectly aware that any revealment of his location would paint a massive bullseye on the blip of drone operators of hostile states who wanted him dead. He should have conducted his activities in Iraq through proxies and liason officers, something not hard to keep personal track of these days with the prevalence of digital communications. This is how top level professionals operate, and Iran has others I’m sure, of this caliber, we have never heard about for good reason. His death was avoidable had he exercised greater discretion and kept a quieter profile.
Nevertheless, when I heard the news about this cowardly murder, I was very much saddened. He was a figure in many ways similar to Ahmad Shah Massoud.
I don’t see any way in which this killing benefits American interests. To my knowledge this is the first time in recorded history that the US, without resorting to plausible deniability, conducted a drone strike against an official of a foreign state, as opposed to some dirt bad jihadist outlaw. This of course changes everything in how the US will be perceived across the world. Up to this point, it was believed that at the very least, the American military machine would refrain from straight out murdering anybody it wished. What’s to stop for example, the Americans from droning some European or Japanese politician should he or she prove to be a geopolitical thorn in their sides?
In addition, Soleimani was also known to act as a liaison with the Iranian leadership to help defuse tensions, prevent “incidents” and even coordinate military activities. Coalition forces cooperated with him many times, and he was not an infrequent guest at meetings with high ranking US military staff. We bargained with him many times. He was not a hardliner. With him out of the picture, any attempt at pressuring the Iranians to back down or moderate themselves would probably be impossible at this point. I don’t see how this can end well at all.
The bottom line is that the US can’t expect any outcome in a war with Iran that is not a complete unmitigated military disaster unless it resorts to deploying its WMD arsenal.
I hope the US does not go to war with Iran, mainly because I think it will hurt Trump’s reelection chances. I also don’t want a huge war as a chronic debtor like the US simply cannot afford these types of adventures.
That said, what you write is ludicrous. Soleimani was both an oppressive figure within Iran (idiots remarking on the mass turnout for his funeral fail to understand that Iran is, like the US, a deeply ideological fractured society; Soleimani was both loved and hated, as is Trump, Sanders, Obama, etc), and a vicious terrorist mastermind (I don’t care if that sounds neconnish; it happens to be true) who was responsible for many American deaths in Iraq. Granted, we should not have been in Iraq at all, but that was no justification for Soleimani’s behavior. American honor demanded his death. Kudos for Trump for possibly imperiling his reelection to defend that honor.
Furthermore, if you think any US non-WMD attacks on Iran will be “an unmitigated disaster”, then you actually haven’t learned much about military affairs. Iran has almost nothing to use against the US except overseas terrorist cells. Indeed, if they activate those cells, this could lead to a long-awaited domestic indigenous v. Muslim colonist conflict, which I think is devoutly to be desired (even if it will play havoc with markets and economies in the short term). I’d like to see mosques burning across the West.
“American honour…”
A contradiction in terms.
First it is impossible for me to cover every point in a single post. Listing all the misdeeds that Soleimani committed against US and Israeli forces and interests in the region was something I omitted to avoid leaving an exceedingly long comment. What I argued against was the propitiousness of his death at the moment, as well as the use of weapons designed to fight terrorism against a state actor.
Second you call the regime that employed him oppressive. In what way? Because they refuse to accept the tenets of global neoliberalism? By that standard, Hitler too was considered oppressive. So were Mussolini and Franco, or for that matter Lee Kuan Yew. Remind me as to why a foreign state’s policy in dealing with internal threats should be of any concern to us?
We should also remark the character and nature of the so called opposition. Ignorant, value-free, egocentric, Western media and pop culture influenced youth who would rather see their country turn into another cheap oil pump/toxic waste dump in return for total license to engage in drug abuse and sexual deviancy? This doesn’t look to me like an ideological division between values of equal significance – but rather a struggle between those who want to preserve their society, heritage and civilization and those who want to see it destroyed.
Lastly there would be absolutely no reason for us to have a beef with Iran any more so than with Kazakhstan or Thailand were it not for the you know who lobby.
American deaths in Iraq
Justified or not, we invaded Iraq so it is fair game for him to target Americans in Iraq as much as it is for us to target him. But the point is was this wise or stupid? I vote for stupid. This is no different than taking out some Mexican drug cartel king. The question is, will it advance the stability you claim to seek, or will it wreak more havoc in Mexico, and consequently our own border? Likewise, regardless of Soleimani’s qualities personally or professionally, what is the effect of this action? If it is to get us to war with Iran, well then, great job. If he thinks this will get him re-elected, well then, what a maroon!
Without falling into Iran worship, it is worth noting that a bloated, bloviating trust fund baby who dodged the draft in Vietnam ordered this assassination from the confines of his resort golf club in Florida. His victim was a humble general who commanded his troops from the frontline. His mettle earned their respect in the heat of battle. He was subsequently droned video-game style by some guy sitting in a box far away, flying a machine that dispensed missiles at his convoy from the sky. This is how America fights its wars.
Muslims fight their wars by persuading lunatics to strap on explosives and then blow themselves up in venues with the maximum number of unarmed or unsuspecting civilians. Such heroes.
BTW, wars are fought in the most effective manner. If Muslims possessed Western military technology, rest assured, they would use it. And while America has gotten weak-kneed in its warmaking, especially in terms of accepting casualties, there are still a lot of special forces warriors I would not want to mess with, even were I two decades younger (and I was slightly on the tougher than average side back then).
Cool story bro.
Out of the memory hole – events planned long ago:
“…Video Interview with General Wesley Clark…Originally published in March 2007… ”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment