Iran (so far away)

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18672
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Hugh Akston »

Soleimani wasn't a threat to Americans, so that pretty much answers that.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19340
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Mo wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 17:41
He would, for example, most likely have a far more lenient immigration policy than ethnocentric social conservatives want if only because he'd want to keep the unskilled and construction trade skilled labor pool as cheap as possible.
There are a few ways to do that. You can do it the way America does it, which is relatively benign or you can do it the way the GCC, China, Thailand, etc. do it, which is barely indistinguishable from slavery. Judging by the way he treats his contractors, I’m not sure how far from the nasty pole he would steer from.
Yes, I realize that. OTOH, my version of Trumpworld eliminates the welfare state, so presumably there would be a cheap labor supply / demand equilibrium after a while.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4272
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Painboy »

Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 17:49
Soleimani wasn't a threat to Americans, so that pretty much answers that.
Like hell he wasn't. He's the primary strategist behind the various Iranian backed militias in Iraq. He's directly linked to killing 100s of US soldiers via EFP explosives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... oops-iraq/

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16483
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Trump is not the first US president to claim the right to assassinate functionaries of states the US was not technically at war with. Until recently, this was done sotto voce and generally with some degree of plausible deniability (eg. Che Guevara).

However, there was generally some degree of either tactical, strategic, or diplomatic advantage gained by such assassinations.

I have yet to hear of any tactical or strategic advantage gained by assassinating Soleimani and the diplomatic blowback has been horrific from the US point of view.

More than anything, I suspect this was Trump's attempt to outdo Obama's offing Bin Laden.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28988
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Painboy wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 18:08
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 17:49
Soleimani wasn't a threat to Americans, so that pretty much answers that.
Like hell he wasn't. He's the primary strategist behind the various Iranian backed militias in Iraq. He's directly linked to killing 100s of US soldiers via EFP explosives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... oops-iraq/
Wait, he used explosives to kill combatants in war zones? This clearly places him on a worse moral plane than anyone in the US policy establishment.

In all seriousness, as a military officer involved in ongoing fighting he was no doubt a valid target under whatever rules one deems to apply. I'll concede any further "is" statements on applicable rules to those who know those things. But none of this contradicts the point some of us have been making for a while, which is that it's hard to see a difference between him and his US counterparts.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16483
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28988
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Obviously a whole lot of investigating needs to happen before any final conclusions are reached, but that said, I don't quite get why Iran would deliberately shoot down this flight immediately after takeoff. The missiles would have to be launched from someplace where they'd have basically zero deniability. I can see an accidental shoot down by some air defense system malfunctioning, but deliberately shooting down a plane so close to Tehran? Why not shoot it down when it's a bit further off, over sparsely populated mountains where you could say "Look, the CIA must have sent some people to infiltrate"?
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16483
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

If the Iranians did shoot it down, (and that is only a possibility, not a likelihood at this point) I think it was unintentional. Somebody clusterfucked at some level and gave the order to fire.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4272
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Painboy »

thoreau wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 21:02
Obviously a whole lot of investigating needs to happen before any final conclusions are reached, but that said, I don't quite get why Iran would deliberately shoot down this flight immediately after takeoff. The missiles would have to be launched from someplace where they'd have basically zero deniability. I can see an accidental shoot down by some air defense system malfunctioning, but deliberately shooting down a plane so close to Tehran? Why not shoot it down when it's a bit further off, over sparsely populated mountains where you could say "Look, the CIA must have sent some people to infiltrate"?
From what I've read the scenario that seems the most likely is after Iran fired the rockets in Iraq they put their anti-air assets on alert for any US counter strikes. The passenger plane then flew into an area where the missile operators didn't expect it to be, or it looked like something else on radar, and somebody with too itchy a trigger finger shot it down.

I can understand why Iran is denying shooting it down. If it was their own missile that took down the plane they will look completely incompetent in front of the whole world.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16483
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Aresen »

Painboy wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 22:27
I can understand why Iran is denying shooting it down. If it was their own missile that took down the plane they will look completely incompetent in front of the whole world.
So, like every MIC everywhere?
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25088
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Mo »

What’s idiotic is that they should have grounded all planes during the strike.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28988
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

It sounds like the Iranian air defense system is run by people who are as sharp as the US military officials who decided to offer Trump an extreme option.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17886
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by lunchstealer »

Painboy wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 18:08
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 17:49
Soleimani wasn't a threat to Americans, so that pretty much answers that.
Like hell he wasn't. He's the primary strategist behind the various Iranian backed militias in Iraq. He's directly linked to killing 100s of US soldiers via EFP explosives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... oops-iraq/
Troops that had been gone for years til we decided to go clean up the ISIS mess for everyone.

Which... man Iran ought to be pretty grateful for that because it pretty much means that Assad is going to win the Syrian civil war now, especially if the Turks destroy the Syrian Kurdish forces.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24797
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

For the record, yes, it is perfectly acceptable from a moral standpoint to kill really bad people operating outside of a legitimate justice system, which includes state actors and especially generals in war zones. Which, also, if he gets a pass for shooting Americans in a war zone he’s a live target for American military response. Not only that, he doesn’t even have to be targeting Americans for lead based interventions to be justified. It is moral if not wise to act in defense of a third party.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24911
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 05:32
For the record, yes, it is perfectly acceptable from a moral standpoint to kill really bad people operating outside of a legitimate justice system, which includes state actors and especially generals in war zones. Which, also, if he gets a pass for shooting Americans in a war zone he’s a live target for American military response. Not only that, he doesn’t even have to be targeting Americans for lead based interventions to be justified. It is moral if not wise to act in defense of a third party.
So if another nation took out Henry Kissinger with a missile, it would have been a justifiable action, even if it did annoy America's government?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24797
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

I’ve been ignoring it because it’s stupid and disregards quite a number of the arguments I’ve made. There are legitimate and illegitimate states. Illegitimate state actors are themselves morally problematic and to the extent the engage in oppression they aren’t justified in retaliation.

Operating outside of a legitimate justice system is the key point there, so no that would not be ok. Yes there are problems when two legitimate governments wage war. Typically the victor gets to say who is a criminal.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25088
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Mo »

That sounds a lot like the IR version of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rule. What happens if a person in a legitimate state acts illegitimately but is not punished? I'll even stray away from the Kissinger example and stick with William Calley or Eddie Gallagher.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24797
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

This is not a full scale take on every possible international interaction. It is a statement that there is a bar for state actors below which you are not in the same moral category as real humans. Some cases are hard and you apply rights standards where you can, but some cases are not hard. Kim Jong Un has no rights other than an expectation not to be tortured on his way out of this life. None. He spends every day of his life terrorizing everyone around him and threatening neighbors. He does so at an institutional scale as the only dude who makes decisions for a state. There is no criminal investigation that will prove his innocence or guilt. There is no Court of True Justice that would be anything other than a mockery. He just needs to stop breathing.

When you are an actor for a state that does not recognize authority of investigative or judicial bodies and you are not removable by your own people other than through violence and you make all the calls that impose rights violations everywhere you go, you have no right to be left alone. The method of addressing that is most often going to be a bullet. If your own people do it that's ok. If someone else does it, that's ok too. That is, ok as a matter of what is morally permissible prior to evaluating utilitarian constraints.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28988
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

Jason, you seem to really want for it to be okay to pop a cap in someone's ass.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19340
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

There are reasonable prudent and political reasons why the U.S. shouldn't make a habit of assassinating foreign despots willy-nilly, not the least being that we propped many of them up in the first place, so it just seems unsporting. But as Jason notes, some cases are easy calls. No one would mourn the death of Kim Jong Un. That's not to say it would be prudent or that the consequences wouldn't or couldn't be worse than leaving him alive, but there's really not much of a moral issue on anything other than consequentialist terms and it's frankly hard to see a compelling issue by that criterion.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 28331
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Warren »

Painboy wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 22:27
thoreau wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 21:02
Obviously a whole lot of investigating needs to happen before any final conclusions are reached, but that said, I don't quite get why Iran would deliberately shoot down this flight immediately after takeoff. The missiles would have to be launched from someplace where they'd have basically zero deniability. I can see an accidental shoot down by some air defense system malfunctioning, but deliberately shooting down a plane so close to Tehran? Why not shoot it down when it's a bit further off, over sparsely populated mountains where you could say "Look, the CIA must have sent some people to infiltrate"?
From what I've read the scenario that seems the most likely is after Iran fired the rockets in Iraq they put their anti-air assets on alert for any US counter strikes. The passenger plane then flew into an area where the missile operators didn't expect it to be, or it looked like something else on radar, and somebody with too itchy a trigger finger shot it down.

I can understand why Iran is denying shooting it down. If it was their own missile that took down the plane they will look completely incompetent in front of the whole world.
You mean like the United States Navy?
It’s not that I don’t have a voice it’s that everyone else is living wrong and I don’t get a veto. - JasonL

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24797
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by JasonL »

Re: DAR - That's about it yes. I can't even fathom the other reasoning to be honest. Would it be morally impermissible for a revolutionary to do it? Like oh no he's got rights? If that revolutionary came from South Korea as a lone actor, would that suddenly be a problem because only the people directly being oppressed can do that kind of thing?

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19340
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Trump and Pompeo basically acknowledge the U.S. has an army of occupation in Iraq.

Admittedly, the Iraqi parliament's vote was non-binding and blah, blah, blah, but the U.S. previously at least gave lip service to the notion that Iraq was still a sovereign state.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28988
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by thoreau »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 12:14
Trump and Pompeo basically acknowledge the U.S. has an army of occupation in Iraq.

Admittedly, the Iraqi parliament's vote was non-binding and blah, blah, blah, but the U.S. previously at least gave lip service to the notion that Iraq was still a sovereign state.
Purple Thumb Day has gone down the memory hole.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4272
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Iran (so far away)

Post by Painboy »

Warren wrote:
10 Jan 2020, 10:43
Painboy wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 22:27
thoreau wrote:
09 Jan 2020, 21:02
Obviously a whole lot of investigating needs to happen before any final conclusions are reached, but that said, I don't quite get why Iran would deliberately shoot down this flight immediately after takeoff. The missiles would have to be launched from someplace where they'd have basically zero deniability. I can see an accidental shoot down by some air defense system malfunctioning, but deliberately shooting down a plane so close to Tehran? Why not shoot it down when it's a bit further off, over sparsely populated mountains where you could say "Look, the CIA must have sent some people to infiltrate"?
From what I've read the scenario that seems the most likely is after Iran fired the rockets in Iraq they put their anti-air assets on alert for any US counter strikes. The passenger plane then flew into an area where the missile operators didn't expect it to be, or it looked like something else on radar, and somebody with too itchy a trigger finger shot it down.

I can understand why Iran is denying shooting it down. If it was their own missile that took down the plane they will look completely incompetent in front of the whole world.
You mean like the United States Navy?
Pretty much.

Post Reply