That 1914 Feeling

Written By: - Date published: 10:28 pm, January 3rd, 2020 - 104 comments
Categories: afghanistan, helen clark, Iran, iraq, jacinda ardern, military, Syria, us politics, war, winston peters - Tags:

President Trump personally ordered the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite military Quds force. He was killed by rockets fired from US drones over Baghdad Airport.  This is unlawful by any standards, as well as an act of war. Iran has promised retaliation.The doomsday clock just moved closer to midnight.

 

 

 

 

 

Aussie blogger Caitlin Johnstone provides a summary here. It is to be hoped our media do not just rely on CNN and the BBC for their commentary. I like the Saker and moonofalabama for facts and analysis – others may have other suggestions.

I look forward to condemnation of this unlawful act by the US President from our political leadership. Helen Clark kept us out of the “coalition of the willing” and it is high time our military were out of Iraq and Afghanistan for that matter.

This situation is very worrying. It is long past time that we spoke up for peace.

 

104 comments on “That 1914 Feeling ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peter 1
    3 January 2020 at 10:58 pm

    When you have a megalomaniac in charge of a country anything can happen. When a country has a megalomaniac in charge who finds out that things don't always go as he wants, the toys being thrown out of his cot could be quite dramatic.

  2. Bill 2
    3 January 2020 at 11:13 pm

    Maybe…just maybe, the US foreign policy establishment and Executive has overplayed its hand (their joint hands) with regards the US population. It'll be interesting to see if the MSNBCs and FOX, NYT and Washington Posts can successfully herd the domestic population behind some notion that this was a strike against terrorism. That's not a little thing, because they need to do that if the intention is to use any retaliation as an excuse for full scale war. But it's also interesting (depressing) that they (the US) have claimed the right to launch pre-emptive strikes from now on in as a means of defence…(escalating to full scale war?)

    We'll see.

  3. Drowsy M. Kram 3
    3 January 2020 at 11:17 pm

    "It’s déjà vu all over again." – Clifford Terry

    "The very bad news is that Trump is truly one of the most simple-minded and easiest manipulated figures in Western political history, and he’s gotten a perfectly Pavlovian lesson this week that if he wants to be treated as a serious president worthy of respect, all he has to do is take dramatic military action."
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-is-beating-the-drum-of-war_b_58ed3b1ae4b0df7e20464088 [04/11/2017]

    C'mon
    Ev'rybody's talking about Ministers
    Sinisters, Banisters and canisters
    Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes
    And bye bye, bye byes

    All we are saying is give peace a chance [Plastic Ono Band] – oh NO!
    We should be saying let's give peace a chance – NZ!

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2020/01/03/breaking-nz-must-be-clear-we-will-not-go-to-war-with-trump-against-iran/

  4. James 4
    4 January 2020 at 12:21 am

    Citation for you claims that the action ordered by trump was illegal?

    Since you state it as fact and all

    • weka 4.1
      4 January 2020 at 4:09 am

      that's a pretty easy google James.

      • James 4.1.1
        4 January 2020 at 7:21 am

        I did google it weka. sure a couple of people asking if it was (lefties of course) – but there is no major site stating that it was in fact illegal.

        since the post mentions is clearly as fact – I thought there would be something to back it up

        so I can only believe that they have better info than the poster and that it was indeed perfectly legal

    • KJT 4.2
      4 January 2020 at 6:38 am

      Is there any piece of right wing nutjobbery, you don't support, James?

      • James 4.2.1
        4 January 2020 at 7:24 am

        killing of assholes like this guy I have no issue with.

        • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.1
          4 January 2020 at 8:25 am

          The principle that it's OK to assassinate foreign officials as long as James thinks the official is an asshole isn't really a workable approach to issues like this.

          • Peter 4.2.1.1.1
            4 January 2020 at 8:42 am

            And if the principle of assassinating officials who you think are assholes is OK why should foreign officials have preference?

            If supporters of the principle think it's okay for it to be a US principle would logic have it that it could be used against their own leaders?

        • LILMAN 4.2.1.2
          5 January 2020 at 7:25 am

          Glad he was taken out.

    • Psycho Milt 4.3
      4 January 2020 at 7:00 am

      Well, assassinating foreign countries' officials is certainly illegal under international law, so I presume you're asking for evidence it's illegal under US law. A more relevant question would be "If it turns out it's actually not illegal under US law for the PotUS to assassinate foreign countries' officials, hadn't they better change that ASAP?"

      • James 4.3.1
        4 January 2020 at 7:25 am

        No – I’m asking for evidence that it’s illegal at all.

        none is provided.

        • Wayne 4.3.1.1
          4 January 2020 at 7:45 am

          James,

          France, Senator Schumer, Fred Kaplan, just about ever international lawyer on the planet. OK I don’t do links, but you could read this just about anywhere on the web.

          Part of the justification is that he was involved in the Iraqi insurgency of a decade and a half ago. It makes no sense. Military leaders on both sides were responsible for attacking the other side. Once the war is over they are no longer lawful targets.

          Unless someone is imminently and directly planning and undertaking a deadly terrorist attack there is no legal justification for attacking them. The US has bought no evidence that Soleimani was doing that. Being head of Quds is not enough.

          The US and Iran are not (yet) in a state of war. Yes, they take action against each other’s interests. A bit like the Cold War between the US and the USSR. In that case neither side attacked the central leadership of the other side. That would be an act of war in a way that the Cold War intelligence operations were not.

          • James 4.3.1.1.1
            4 January 2020 at 7:54 am

            https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/03/us/politics/ap-us-united-states-iran-legal-questions.html

            peob the best I have read in this subject.

            Didn’t backup the statement that this was “unlawful by any standards” as this post stated.

            • Psycho Milt 4.3.1.1.1.1
              4 January 2020 at 8:30 am

              It's unlawful by international standards. Any government can pass laws allowing it to assassinate foreign countries' officials, so the question of whether this was legal under US law or not is irrelevant. For example, all the people the Nazis executed were killed legally under German law because the Nazi government had passed laws making that legal. Countries with rule of law considered that fact irrelevant, just as they should in this case.

              • Robert Guyton …
                4 January 2020 at 9:43 am

                " all the people the Nazis executed were killed legally under German law because the Nazi government had passed laws making that legal."

                Is James arguing that this is okay?

                • James …
                  4 January 2020 at 10:32 am

                  No – PM is.

                  keep up Robert.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  4 January 2020 at 10:36 am

                  To be fair, he isn't arguing that. His quibbling about the legality of assassinating foreign countries' officials is a sideshow, his actual argument being presented in comment 4.2.1, with its implied argument that killing people is OK if James thinks they're an "asshole." There's no reason (thus far) to assume James considers the victims of the Nazis to be "assholes," but if he did think they were "assholes" then yes he would be arguing it was OK for the Nazis to execute them.

                  • James …
                    4 January 2020 at 10:43 am

                    No – what I’m arguing is that the comment was made this was illegal. I’m saying that is not proven – and there is nothing to back up the posters claim.

                    the second point was personal view. Which is I have no issue with evil people like this being killed. The equivalent argument would be that I would not be sad is someone killed hitler before he could do more harm.

                    • Incognito …
                      4 January 2020 at 11:19 am

                      Skipping the legality issue for a moment, will this pre-emptive strike to remove ‘a risk’ lower the risk/threat level? Will more or fewer innocent lives be lost, for example, as a direct result of this thuggish action on foreign soil? Where does the US draw the line in protecting their ‘interests’?

                    • McFlock …
                      4 January 2020 at 3:41 pm

                      I'm sure Iraq has a law against murder.

                    • McFlock …
                      4 January 2020 at 3:55 pm

                      It also seems to be contrary to Article2, principle 4 of the UN charter (of which the US is a member):

                      All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

              • James …
                4 January 2020 at 10:29 am

                “It's unlawful by international standards”

                You state something as fact with nothing to back it up.

                there are positions where that is legal – it has not been proven that this was not.

            • Andre 4.3.1.1.1.2
              4 January 2020 at 9:37 am

              I suspect if you dug into the backgrounds of those opinion piece writers (and I can't be arsed doing that), you'd probably find they're enthusiasts for expansive executive powers (but only for Repug presidents). Hence their exclusive focus on Article 2 of the Constitution.

              But if it ever came to having to fight against serious domestic blowback for assassinating a senior member of a legitimate foreign government that the US was not in a formal war with, then I suspect the stronger defence would be that it was authorised under the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed in 2001 after 9/11.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

        • Macro 4.3.1.2
          4 January 2020 at 10:03 pm

          Can I refer you to this article which looks at the legality of whether or not Trump had the authority to order the killing. The author notes that the matter can be looked at from an International context – but also notes that the Trump administration is noted for not seeing itself constrained by International Law.

          In the past, the United States has relied on one of two Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to authorize military operations in Iraq. Both remain on the books and provide the most plausible possible statutory legal basis for the strike that killed Soleimani.

          The more famous of the two is the 2001 AUMF, which currently provides the legal authority for U.S. military operations against al-Qaeda and related groups around the world, including those against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The language of this AUMF authorizes “all necessary and appropriate force” against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and anyone whom “[the president] determines” has harbored and assisted them—not a category that most see as including the Iranian regime, whose religious views are anathema to those of al-Qaeda. That said, the Trump administration has reportedly suggested in briefings to Congress that the 2001 AUMF could be used to target Iran. The exact reasoning behind this assertion is unclear, but Trump administration officials have reportedly pointed to certain transactional interactions between al-Qaeda and Iran both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. Such ties are far weaker than what has been used to authorize the use of military force against other groups in the past. But the broad and expressly deferential language of the 2001 AUMF makes its application on the basis of these ties difficult to rule out entirely.

          https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-president-have-domestic-legal-authority-kill-qassem-soleimani

    • Obtrectator 4.4
      4 January 2020 at 9:44 am

      It mightn't have been "illegal", but it sure was a bad precedent.

      • Peter 4.4.1
        4 January 2020 at 10:18 am

        It would be a dramatically bad precedent if some overseas power took out the US President. It would be seen as a declaration of war.

        When the US does it, it's 'sorting out a situation which needs to be sorted out.'

    • Bill 4.5
      4 January 2020 at 11:23 am

      A US President requires Congressional approval to take the US into war. Now sure, the Constitution has been ignored by Presidents going back to (I think) WW2 – but that doesn't make it legal, and it has only become "a habit" due to the prevalence of bi-partisan support for military adventurism.

      The fact this act of war was an assassination goes back to G Bush who began the whole drone strike nonsense that Obama continued with, including (I don't know if this was an escalation on his part or if Bush had done likewise) extrajudicial killing of US citizens abroad.

      The Democrats are currently looking at adding further articles of impeachment to their current piss weak case against Trump. If they were serious about protecting the integrity of their institutions, this act by Trump would be in there quicker than milk.

      I'm not holding my breath.

      The Washington Post is headlining that Trump meant this as an act to preserve peace, while the Guardian is couching it in terms of being "a gamble". No condemnation from pop media then – as expected.

  5. Exkiwiforces 5
    4 January 2020 at 1:07 am

    It depends on the lawyer of the day, who gives you what/ any/ if any legal advice on the Laws of Armed Conflict or the Rules of War James. Yes folks there are certain rules and Laws for the conduct of War/ Arm Conflict in which just about every tom, dick and Harry thumbs it nose at them when suits them.

    • James 5.1
      4 January 2020 at 7:28 am

      Thanks

      i understand there are rules for this kind of thing – and I’m sure they are complicated.
      im also sure the US checked them out well before killing the guy.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 5.1.1
        4 January 2020 at 11:15 am

        "…before killing assassinating the guys." – fixed.

        “Overall, the statement [by the Pentagon about the airstrike] places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense,” Callamard continued.

        “The statement fails to mention the other individuals killed alongside Suleimani. Collateral? Probably. Unlawful. Absolutely,” she added.

        https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/us-airstrike-that-killed-qassim-soleimani-of-iran-violates-human-rights-law-un-official-says/

        Of course, that's just the opinion of a so-called ‘expert’ (UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing), and what do they know! In 2003, similar ‘experts’ were saying that Iraq had no WMD capability, but we know that can't be right, because it was a principal justification that the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq (Shock and Awesome), resulting in the deaths of >100,000 Iraqi civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Casualty_estimates

        Probably no one in the US administration intended for the ‘body count’ to get that high, but you never know.

  6. Exkiwiforces 6
    4 January 2020 at 1:19 am

    Yes Mike, it does have that 1914 feel about it and I must start to sound like a broken gramophone here at The Standard by now that our elected leaders are slowly sleep walking to war atm without realising it.

    It’s high time both NZ and Oz get out of the Sandpit and leave it to the Yanks and their Allies along with the Mad Mulah’s to slug it out for once and all.

    Heck even with a few cans of instant sunshine thrown around by the muppets in the sandpit might even slow down CC for once or the price POL products go through the roof might in courage high demand renewable energy sources/ products.

  7. WeTheBleeple 7
    4 January 2020 at 5:04 am

    Told y'all he would start a war just to stay in office. Now the office is threatened, hey presto. America's credibility is in tatters, watch the final threads break loose as this unfolds. Meanwhile, the actual people who want none of this, those 180 million odd Americans with half a clue, dragged along for the ride by this adult child's tantrums. The whole world must suffer because Trump got caught cheating. This is exactly what a rich prick looks like, I've met a few.

  8. Puckish Rogue 8
    4 January 2020 at 7:12 am

    Sorry but its one less dead terrorist and Iran can say what it likes in public but in private they'll know what can happen if they step out of line too much

    You attack a countries embassy you attack the country, Trumps response was proportionate and sent a clear message about consequences of actions

    • Robert Guyton 8.1
      4 January 2020 at 9:44 am

      "Out of line"

      Whose "line"?

    • Psycho Milt 8.2
      4 January 2020 at 3:31 pm

      Sorry but its one less dead terrorist…

      To the extent that senior leadership of the Iranian military can be labelled "terrorists," so can the leadership of the US military. Is it good if people start assassinating them too?

      You attack a countries embassy you attack the country…

      More accurately, if some dudes stage a protest at a country's embassy, some dude in a third country has attacked that country? Calling that a non sequitur feels over-generous.

      • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1
        4 January 2020 at 4:16 pm

        They killed an American, it wasnt a peaceful protest

        • adam 8.2.1.1
          4 January 2020 at 4:42 pm

          Totally agree Puckish Rouge when an American dies, and we should kill the person who perpetrated the heinous act.

          To that end I think we need to send a drone towards Jeff Bezos at once! And wipe the vile killer of Americans off the face of the planet.

          https://nypost.com/2019/10/19/amazon-workers-forced-to-go-back-to-work-after-fellow-employee-dies-on-shift/

          [Please tell us that that was sarcasm and not an incitement to violence. Jeff Bezos hasn’t ordered any killings, has he? Please watch your language – Incognito]

          • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1.1
            4 January 2020 at 5:12 pm

            No arguments here

          • Incognito 8.2.1.1.2
            5 January 2020 at 12:00 am

            See my Moderation 4:42 PM.

            • adam 8.2.1.1.2.1
              5 January 2020 at 1:06 am

              If you did not read that as the bitterly stupid logical conclusion of Puckish Rouges vacuous argument, then I do truly have to worry Incognito.

              • Incognito …
                5 January 2020 at 2:07 pm

                With some comments, it is hard to tell, sometimes.

                With some commenters, it is hard to tell, sometimes.

                Ambiguity has its place, sometimes.

        • Andre 8.2.1.2
          4 January 2020 at 5:15 pm

          In all the reports I've seen about the Baghdad embassy protest, there were no deaths or even injuries reported. On the scale of shit going down in the Middle East, that counts as remarkably low-violence.

          The protests were claimed to be a response to airstrikes on Iran-aligned militias in Iraq that killed 25 …

          which were in turn claimed to be in response to a rocket attack on a US base in Iraq which killed 1 US civilian contractor and injured several other Americans …

          which was in turn claimed to be a response to … well, the chain goes all the way back to Donny Dotard trashing the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018.

          https://time.com/5757228/us-iran-events-timeline/

    • Macro 8.3
      4 January 2020 at 10:10 pm

      And now we await the response from Iran.

    • LILMAN 8.4
      5 January 2020 at 7:29 am

      Yes I agree, the POTUS has done a good thing,Obama was a coward,remember his red line in Syria?

      Children and civilians died because he was gutless,at least Trump made Iran pay a price and just maybe force Iranian Leaders to think again.

  9. Sabine 9
    4 January 2020 at 8:47 am

    so Iraq – thanks to false information and outright lying to the public, the UN, the allies and all that shit – invaded and fucked up beyond believe

    Afghanistan – thanks to the same – invaded – again i might add – and fucked for the third generation.

    Syria – see above – also fucked beyond believe

    Lebanon – see above

    Yemen – well the Saudis got to loose that war, but see above and fucked and starved for shits n giggles

    and yet, our resident 101 Key board warriors scream their tiny little heads of in delight that the US – occupying the country the illegally invaded and destroyed – targets an invited foreign national akin to a Vice Premier Minister such as Winston – cause the fat fuck in the oval office once more can't shit, or can't flush his shit down the toilet, or can't get his daughter or his wife to fuck him, or because Pelosi lives rent free in the empty cavity beneath the birdsnest he calls hair.

    And our 101 Key board brigade is creaming themselves cause 'killing Iranians is good'.

    Anyone please care to point out which country Iran has invaded? Invaded under false premises? Destroyed beyond believe? Anyone please? Fucking please?

    Good grief. Good fucking grief, are people so bored with their little lives that they clamor for a war?

    WE are so fucked.

    • Bazza64 9.1
      4 January 2020 at 10:16 am

      Comparing Soleimani to Winston Peters is a bit of a stretch. One sleeps while overseas, the other is the head of armed forces of a religious theocracy hell bent on spreading their brand of religion & terrorism across the middle east.

      Trump had previously shown restraint, but now the US have acted (who knows it could escalate terribly) as they warned Iran they would.

      Iran probably want a war too – will take the focus off their domestic problems & medieval regime (medieval except for their weapons)

      • francesca 9.1.1
        4 January 2020 at 10:47 am

        He (Suleimani )was also the head and strategist of armed forces hugely instrumental in defeating IS in Iraq

      • Siobhan McCormack 9.1.2
        4 January 2020 at 11:13 am

        So maybe swap Winstons name for any Chief of Staff of the United States Army or United States Secretary of Defense..all people.. hell bent on spreading their brand of Corporate Democracy & terror across the middle east…

    • james 9.2
      4 January 2020 at 2:58 pm

      "cause the fat fuck in the oval office once more can't shit, or can't flush his shit down the toilet, or can't get his daughter or his wife to fuck him, or because Pelosi lives rent free in the empty cavity beneath the birdsnest he calls hair."

      I think we have hit peak hysteria.

      Chill – its the weekend.

  10. Sacha 10
    4 January 2020 at 9:58 am

    Legality is not a useful way to approach this when you are dealing with an aggressor that has long explicitly rejected the jurisdiction of world courts.

    Argue it is wrong on other grounds (not that what we say here will make the slightest difference to what unfolds next).

  11. Andre 11
    4 January 2020 at 10:21 am

    There were some in Congress that saw something like this coming, and made a feeble attempt to put a leash on the terracotta turdface. But they got voted down anyway.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/3/21048098/iran-qassem-soleimani-ndaa-2019-vote-ro-khanna-aumf

  12. francesca 12
    4 January 2020 at 10:36 am

    I can't believe that anyone in their right minds(uh oh) can want a war in this region If insurers will no longer insure for the Hormuz strait what happens to the world economy?

    This kind of drama should be propelling govts much faster towards a non fossil fuel economy

    • Andre 12.1
      4 January 2020 at 10:54 am

      Your mistake is thinking there's some kind of big picture or strategic thinking behind it. There isn't. There is only what makes the tangerine toddler feel good in the moment. Even if it's just a spreading feeling of warmth in his nappy.

      https://www.salon.com/2020/01/03/heres-the-big-question-how-does-trump-personally-benefit-from-war-with-iran/

    • francesca 12.2
      4 January 2020 at 10:54 am

      Gawd! Like a sitcom

      Four Years Ago, Trump Had No Clue Who Iran’s Suleimani Was. Now He May Have Kicked Off WWIII.

      Mehdi Hasan

      January 4 2020, 2:56 a.m.

      US President Donald Trump makes a video call to the troops stationed worldwide at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach Florida, on December 24, 2019. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

      President Donald Trump makes a video call to the troops stationed worldwide at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Dec. 24, 2019.

      Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

      IN SEPTEMBER 2015, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump appeared on the syndicated radio show of conservative media star, Hugh Hewitt, to talk foreign policy.

      “Are you familiar with General Suleimani?” Hewitt asked the real estate mogul from Queens.

      “Yes,” said Trump, before hesitating. “Go ahead, give me a little … tell me.”

      When Hewitt told Trump that Suleimani “runs the Quds Forces,” Trump responded: “I think the Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by us.”

      “No, not the Kurds, the Quds Forces,” Hewitt interjected. “The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Quds Forces. The bad guys.”

      “I thought you said Kurds,” a sheepish Trump replied.

      • Sacha 12.2.1
        4 January 2020 at 11:12 am

        Further protestations of the cheeto-in-chief's innocence:

        https://twitter.com/dcpoll/status/1213104654172794880

      • Bill 12.2.2
        4 January 2020 at 11:39 am

        You'd have thought (putting myself in the Oval Office) that if I sat there and said I had this great idea about drone striking Soleimani, that there would be at least one adviser telling me I was being a dick and laying out why.

        But if I'm in the Oval Office and don't really have a handle on the details, then I can see how I might be gamed by various advisers to drone strike the guy.

        It wouldn't surprise me if the second scenario is fairly close to what happened. It doesn't make me innocent, and illustrates why Congressional oversight needs to be exercised by the clowns people elected to office.

        If they refuse to do that, aren't they all as culpable as Trump?

    • Stuart Munro 12.3
      4 January 2020 at 11:06 am

      One would expect they'd've been pursuing such a policy well before a compelling political emergency arose – but of course they'll have been doing nothing as usual.

      Peter Bethune was chasing it up back in 2004 and concluded that hydrogen as a fuel was a dead-end, but that biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol could become mainstream in use. (wikipedia)

      Whatever coherence may have existed in US middle eastern policy prior to Trump is long gone, which will move things toward physical rather than rational resolutions.

  13. Fireblade 13
    4 January 2020 at 1:28 pm

    New U.S. air raid close to Camp Taji in Iraq.

    "Iraqi official says air raid hit cars carrying Iran-backed militia north of Baghdad"

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/air-raid-targets-hashd-commander-iraq-state-tv-200103233605393.html

  14. infused 14
    4 January 2020 at 5:47 pm

    It's about time the US grew some balls.

    Iran ain't going to do a thing.

    • joe90 14.1
      4 January 2020 at 6:00 pm

      Yeah, and these blokes are going for the sun, surf and sand.

      /

      https://twitter.com/ginaaharkins/status/1213186133720481792

    • Barfly 14.2
      4 January 2020 at 8:44 pm

      and if they do….u looking fwd 2 $300 per barrel oil?

      • adam 14.2.1
        5 January 2020 at 1:11 am

        Look forward to no oil, the US military has low reserves – and can not do any more than a few days of combat.

        If this blows up, forget going to the pump.

        • joe90 14.2.1.1
          5 January 2020 at 10:36 am

          The US military uses around 100 million barrels annually. The US has around 650 million barrels of oil in reserve.

          They ain't running out anytime soon.

          • John Clover 14.2.1.1.1
            6 January 2020 at 11:45 am

            Thank you for those figures Joe90.

            I get rather tired of all these silly comments about Trump… grow up folk, it doesn't help with the discussion and is foolish and un productive name calling. What children do before they grow up, if they do.

            • Incognito 14.2.1.1.1.1
              6 January 2020 at 11:51 am

              Lowering the level of discourse is a deliberate strategy AKA as dumbing down. At the same time we are distracted, numbed down, fooled, and turned off. If we all think and act as little children, it is lot easier for the elites to continue their nefarious business.

  16. francesca 16
    5 January 2020 at 10:12 am

    Its going to take the mother of all conspiracy theories to somehow find Putin behind all this There'll be some contortionist out there to do it

    After all,Trump does nothing without Putin's say so, and if Putin says go and attack my crucial ally in the Caucasus and Syria, Trumpy will do it

    Do I need a sarc tag?

  19. joe90 19
    5 January 2020 at 1:50 pm

    Used him him when they needed him and then assassinated him as a distraction.

    His enormous influence has even led to limited cooperation with the Americans. In spite of his involvement in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and his unconcealed loathing for the U.S., Soleimani cooperated with the Americans to elect Iraq’s interim prime minister in 2010. At the U.S.'s request, Soleimani also ordered the Mahdi Army, led by the separatist Iraqi Shi’ite Muqtada al-Sadr, to stop attacking American targets in Baghdad. And when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, Iranian officials – on Soleimani’s orders – gave American representatives a map of Taliban bases to target in Afghanistan.

    On at least two occasions, American forces could have killed Soleimani but refrained, due mainly to considerations of local politics and Washington’s desire to preserve the undercover cooperation with Tehran in the war against ISIS in Iraq.

    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/qassem-soleimani-iran-quds-force-that-attacked-israel-trump-killed-in-iraq-1.6075565

  20. joe90 20
    5 January 2020 at 5:18 pm

    But..but…he’ll never go for that, it’s way too out there.

    https://twitter.com/EvanMcMullin/status/1213645534063419393

    • Andre 20.1
      5 January 2020 at 5:27 pm

      There's been a steady escalation of what the tinyfingers twittertwat needs to do to provoke sufficient outrage to distract from his other current problems. I'm seriously worried we're now only a few steps away from him indulging his nukes curiosity to distract and look tough.

      • pat 20.1.1
        5 January 2020 at 5:32 pm

        are nukes used exclusively at the whim of the President?….or is there some form of cross confirmation from another party?

      • McFlock 20.1.2
        5 January 2020 at 8:04 pm

        And I'm worried that by now everyone who would have had the gumption to stop him has been replaced by toadies.

  21. Rosie Bradbury 21
    5 January 2020 at 8:47 pm

    RIP the Grandduke Ferdinand, RIP the Western World.

  22. John Clover 22
    6 January 2020 at 12:06 pm

    Iran has been thumping its whats-it at America with the US playing it cool so it is about time they showed Iran what to expect it they continue. The problem will come from all the small groups looking to have the 'west' on.

  23. Muttonbird 23
    6 January 2020 at 6:59 pm

    I read a headline the other day which claimed the only person who could bring down Trump is Bolton.

    Now Trump is executing Bolton's innermost desires.

    Coincidence?