Featured Post

An American Coup D'etat?

This has gotten completely out of control. I never thought I would see our country's politics reduced to the degrading levels of a Banan...

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Good News: Qasim Soleimani, Dead as Dead can be

I was delighted to hear that Iranian scumbag and General Qasim Soleimani met his end in a ball of fire thanks to a missile from a US Reaper drone. This is good news; this is very good news. We should all be very grateful that we have a President with the courage and patriotism to order the death of QS. I have long bemoaned the fact, and I stress fact, that we in the West have not been at war with the Islamist crazies--be they Shia or Sunni--but we have been under attack. In other words, they have been at war with us, while we have allowed ourselves--as a rule--to suffer attacks and outrages; we have crippled our ability to respond thanks to the goodness of our societies, our kindness towards strangers, our tendency to paralysis through analysis, by trying to anticipate every outcome, every consequence of what we might do--a hopeless task.

There at times when you must just act.

Before we get ourselves into a Bastiat-style discussion of the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of killing QS, let's remind ourselves of some basics. Soleimani deserved to die for the terrorist horrors he has inflicted on the world for the past 25 or so years. He was a prolific mass and serial murderer. There are times when such people just have to be removed, damn the consequences. Would we have desisted from killing Hitler out of concern for the power vacuum his death might leave at the top of the Reich? For fear that his death might energize the Nazi war machine even further? No, no way. Hitler deserved to die, and in a horrible manner. Soleimani, and his evil companions, deserved to become ropa vieja on that Baghdad highway.

Now, some "niceties."

I have been angered, though not surprised, by some of the idiotic negative commentary on Trump's order to shoot. Trump did not need to consult with the Congress or anybody else before giving that order. Soleimani was a uniformed enemy combatant active on a foreign battlefield, directing and implementing operations against US personnel and institutions, e.g., the Embassy. QS had a LONG, LONG history of conducting lethal operations against US and other Western targets, using largely proxy forces. At the time of death, he was in Iraq meeting the leader of one of those proxy militias, the one which had just attacked the US Embassy in Baghdad, and preparing further actions against us. He was not some random civilian Iranian government official whom we assassinated in his home in Tehran. He was a military man, conducting a covert military mission against us outside of Iran's territory. His killing is no more an illegitimate act than say that of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto or of US General Simon Bolivar Bruckner, Jr.

Now, the consequences.

Sure, the Iranians are angry and humiliated. They were convinced that we would not do anything directly to them and that we would be content with killing a few lowly proxy militiamen. They were wrong. Trump is not Obama; he is not going to ship them $1.5 billion in cash and gold in the dead of night in the vain hope of appeasing the Persian Moloch, getting a worthless piece of paper promising that Tehran will cease and desist with (fill in the blank). He is not the sort to put up with another Benghazi massacre. So, yes, the Iranians have a problem on their hands. They have to decide what to do, knowing that it will in all likelihood provoke another terrifying US response. The whole proxy thing is now a bit threadbare, but they could, out of habit, go back to that and have a proxy conduct some sort of operation against US forces, civilians, diplomats, etc. They could launch an attack in London, or Paris, or New York using the "sleeper cells" made possible by idiotic Western immigration policies. They could try some sort of cyber attack. They could launch ship-killing missiles in the Gulf aimed at shutting down marine transit through Hormuz. There are lots of things they might do, many of those were ones they were already doing.

All that, well, is for them to decide: weigh the pros and the cons of an action.

As far as we are concerned, however, we should not wait. We need to be preemptive, and I don't mean just issuing warnings or stepping up security at Embassies and airports. I would hope that the President is being handed a list of options for further action as needed. Now is the time for the President or the Secretary of State to go on the air and tell the Iranians the sorts of things we are considering. Sometimes being secretive is not useful.

Now is the time openly to tell the Iranians that we do not want war, but they should want it much less. We should openly tell them that we will dismantle their oil production, their ability to generate electricity, to distribute water, to conduct financial operations, etc. We should tell them that their navy and air force are forfeit in the case of an action against us, and that we will degrade their ability to conduct all types of military operations. We will smash their proxy forces without mercy. On the other hand, we are open to talks with Tehran and stand ready to discuss all topics without preconditions. Meet us.

We also should quietly, once the current cloud of dust settles, tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving. They are not worth the life a single American.

71 comments:


  1. Donald J. Trump
    ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
    55m55 minutes ago

    Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently....
    7,302 replies 18,361 retweets 63,127 likes
    Donald J. Trump
    ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
    55m55 minutes ago

    ....hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have.....
    1,488 replies 11,947 retweets 44,277 likes

    Donald J. Trump
    ‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    ....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
    2:52 PM - 4 Jan 2020
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I had not seen that. It's good news.

      Delete
  2. I can easily imagine these same invertebrates, mewling in December 1941: "Yes, the attack on Pearl Harbor was bad. But if we retaliate, the Japanese will escalate and many more Americans will be killed."

    RY/
    Butch

    ReplyDelete
  3. Similar attitude with the Soviets. If we do this or that it will anger Moscow. Must not upset Moscow. Reagan, "the bombing begins in - minutes". The "Evil Empire" speech, SDI. Moscow was finished.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The celerity with which this was executed is surprising and suggests the message was delivered along the lines of: "Yes, we know where each and every one of you are and we can elimninate you within days, not months or years."

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soleimani didn't hide his travels in general and that night had arrived in Baghdad on a commercial flight from Syria. He knew he would "be martyred" at some point and didn't put any effort into preventing it.

      Delete
  5. "Before we get ourselves into a Bastiat-style discussion of the possible ramifications and unintended consequences of killing QS"

    There's no need to. We will find out soon enough. A whole lot is going to depend on how intellegent the Iranian Mullahs are. If they are smart, they will "cool it". If they are stupid, they will escalate further and we will have a big war. It is sad that DJT's reelection may depend on their not being stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I highly doubt Trump's going to send actual US troops anywhere in the middle east. If Iran escalates, it will be drone and air strikes in large quantities.
      As it was roughly put: Trump doesn't seem to consider even all of the middle east worth the life of one US soldier. If true, I can't really say I disagree with it.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. My guess: at some point this year a very high ranking US military officer is going to die in an attack that cannot be directly linked to the Iranian military.

      Delete
  6. After the attempt to take the US embassy but before Soleiman was sent 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust', I'd been saying that I wanted someone to tell the mullahs, "Nice Republican Guard ya got there, real shame if something happened to it." Since I don't think they would last any longer than the Ceascus if their protectors were rendered ineffective. Kinda looks to me that someone has.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi

    Your website was is not working in Firefox, the browser is giving me a error "Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" and Malwarebytes is giving be Trojan warning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw the same with Malwarebytes using my Chromebook. I'm in the thread with this message in Firefox with Malwarebytes off.

      Delete
    2. Saw it too (mentioning to Whitewall over on Duff's) in my Firefox, switched to Brave same, Malwarebytes likewise. Whitelisted on Malwarebytes with the result that Firefox (my default) and Brave allowing. Immediately accessing here then quitting into a threat scan revealed clean.

      Firefox recently did an update (last Wednesday?) which, thinking onit, may have caused a simple glitch.

      Delete
  8. I haven't seen any reports on who Soleimani was planning on meeting in Baghdad before he meet with his "unfortunate accident". Was it with Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi ? Again? BTW, it has been reported that Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi attended the Iraqi funeral for Soleimani


    See DEBKA File from Nov 1, 2019:

    https://www.debka.com/soleimani-takes-helm-of-iraqi-security-from-prime-minister-abdul-mahdi/

    "Desperate to quell the bloody protests spreading through Iraq, Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani flew into Baghdad and seized control of its army and security services. On Wednesday, Oct. 30, a special helicopter carried the Revolutionary Guards Al Qods chief from Baghdad international airport to the capital’s fortified Green Zone. In the prime minister’s office, he found a meeting in progress of military and security chiefs on ways to hold back the resurgent protest that from Oct. 25 had already claimed hundreds of dead and thousands of injured as it raged through Baghdad and the Shiite towns of the south.

    Soleimani who swept into the meeting with a party of aides took the chair from Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi. He then told the commanders gathered there, “We in Iran know how to deal with protests. This happened in Iran and we got it under control.”

    It was obvious to the Iraqi officials present that the Iranian general was taking charge, DEBKAfile’s sources report. This was effectively an Iranian coup for the takeover of Iraq’s political and security leadership. This extreme step was intended to hold back the free fall of Tehran’s influence in Baghdad as well as Beirut – under the mounting weight of popular disaffection in Iraq and Lebanon."



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *A birdie informs Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes was in one of the two vehicles dispatched to pick up Soleimani at the airport.

      Who al-Mohandes?

      https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2020/01/02/US-embassy-attack-was-Iran-s-way-of-showing-they-run-Iraq.html

      JK

      Delete
  9. So true...

    And Trump is just itching for an excuse to leave, such as the Iraqi Government asking the US to Leave.

    And the Iraqi Government knows that...

    >tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving.
    >They are not worth the life a single American.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A twofer: wax a terrorist scumbag and an excuse to leave Iraq.

      RY/
      Butch

      Delete
  10. The crucial line in your post, Dip, is the last:
    "We also should quietly, once the current cloud of dust settles, tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving."
    The sooner we leave that crappy place to its own devices, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. First, Iran will retaliate. A proportionate response would be to kill either Pompeo or Esper.

    Second, I have no doubt Trump will further escalate the conflict. It is, in fact, now out of everyone's control, and the conflict will grow and take directions and entrain other countries on its own, without human decision making. Or rather, because the internal tit-for-tat logic will force decision makers to make choices they do not want. Is that not the logic of WW I?

    We can, of course, use our air power to completely destroy Iran's civilian and military infrastructure and to crush its air force and navy.

    But their ballistic and cruise missiles and drones would remain, and they could shut down all oil production from the Middle East for a year or so, maybe longer. That's 20% of world consumption and 40% of European consumption. We would have to make up part of that short fall if we want to have any alliances. We would experience severe gasoline and fuel rationing.

    Trump promised to end our wars in the Middle East and Central Asian. Instead, he may have given us the largest war since Viet Nam, and an equally unwinnable war.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brimming with optimism I see. Progressives and Liberals here at home will be more long term threat to us than Iran ever will be.

      Delete
    2. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

      Get a grip, soy boy.

      Delete
    3. I like that Trump brought up Iran's oil infrastructure. *Every* piece of so-called diplomacy with Iran means *nothing* without accounting for their oil infrastructure.
      No President has ever reduced it, even during the embassy invasion.
      *No* other action will ever have *any* effect upon Iran.
      Take out their oil infrastructure and Iran is no more of a regional player than Yemen or Sudan.

      It's always bugged me that both Democrat and Republican President alike have always treated Iranian oil as a sacred cow, even when it was supposedly fully embargoed.
      If Iran is a true problem, take down the oil and frack the consequences.

      The wikipedia page on this 'crisis' attribute the cause to 'Trump dropping the JCPOA'.... liberals have too much time on their hands and too much misinformation to spread. This crisis started in 1979, if not as early as 571 AD.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. "liberals have too much time on their hands and too much misinformation to spread." True.
      They are also on the other side as usual.

      Delete
    5. "That's … 40% of European consumption. We would have to make up part of that short fall if we want to have any alliances."

      The world is changing. Why would the US give a tinker's damn if Eurotrash suffer? Those are the same Eurotrash who have been working so hard to undermine sanctions on Iran and allow Iran to continue with its missile and nuclear weapons program.

      Yes, let's wish the Iraqis well and leave. And then let's leave the Europeans to their own devices also.

      Delete
    6. Sykes, you are attributing way too much power to Iran. They are a third rate power. Oil is ll they have and that is no longer the weapon it once was and they no longer are that important of a producer. They have limited military power and they know it. Terror is what they have and that is not always useful.

      Delete
    7. The only 2 Eurozone countries we should send oil/gas to are Britain and Poland. As for the hardcore EU folks...they can talk to Putin.

      Delete
    8. I've read that if we hadn't hamstrung the military in Nam, we could have won. Don't know if that's true, but I've never seen an actual refutation of it either.

      As for Europe. I thought they wanted to ban all fossil fuels within the next decade or do anyway, so this should just help them kick-start the program. We can help out Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the other former eastern bloc countries whose governments actually want to protect their people and not become part of the caliphate.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. America....Fuck Yeah! You cultist turds and your shiny objects....fucking hilarious. Lawd yes, the D.C. Uniparty can swiftly and harshly apply justice to a terrorist killing in the name of the pedophile (child raping) prophet. However, when it comes to applying the rule of law to treasonous shitbags and high crimes domestically......not so much. That is, unless, it's dirty deplorable dirtbags, common citizens, and practitioners of individual freedom in possession of GUNZ. Oh, Hell No!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So ... did you have a comment on the post? Any opinion on the killing of Soleimani?

      Delete
  14. "*No* other action will ever have *any* effect upon Iran.
    Take out their oil infrastructure and Iran is no more of a regional player than Yemen or Sudan."

    Very true...

    You can't eat sand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doable of course. Also deepen the sanctions to include any nation(s) that does business with Iran. Some of Europe might need to make a choice.

      Delete
  15. Glad to hear that the not-so-new-normal is AWESOME with everybody in this former CONSTITUTIONAL Republic. That all Presidents that you like, and all Presidents that you loathe, may unilaterally bomb anyone they want, for any reason, at any time, and at any point on the surface of the earth without any explanation other than "trust me, he was a really bad guy", without regard to civilians, without regard to the sovereignty of other nations, without regard to whether it may start a war (which he needs no one's permission for anyway), and without any check whatsoever on that power.

    What could possibliye go wrong?

    Glad everybody's good to start civil war over parts of the now-defunct Constition that they like while shitting upon the parts they don't like.

    Mission Accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was a pinpoint surgical strike with zero collateral damage against the VERY GUY who planned and orchestrated the attack on our embassy just days ago. If the U.S. does not have the right to fight back against the VERY GUY that did this to us, then apparently we have no right to respond in any way ever to any attack or provocation. We might as well just announce to the entire Mid-East, "Y'all just do whatever you want to us, our citizens, and our property. We won't ever resist or fight back."

      Delete
    2. You realize fellow anon, the immediately previous President took 2418 (in the public domain) drone strikes onto Iraqi "sovereign" soil?

      Two, though not onto Iraq, I'd just add, the first taking out an American citizen "without process" and then seven months later taking out the son? (Yemen)

      Not that either were, as individuals, such a big deal by my lights but if you're only now taking issue with the CONSTITUTIONAL ramifications I'd suggest you're wasting your time on this particular forum.

      (Yes the same President whose NSC & UN staff undertook eg 'unmaskings').

      JK

      Delete
    3. Anon, iraq does not have sovereignty. They are an occupied territory.

      Delete
    4. Anon, an Authorization to Use Military Force was in effect. Congress passed it and everything. Do you deny that Congress can authorize military force against our enemies? Do you deny that Soleimani was our enemy?

      Delete
    5. Constitution places no real limits on executive authority over the military. Spending? Yes. Orders? No. If the President is 'waging war' and congress doesn't want him to, they can pretty much only stop paying for stuff.
      There have been some laws passed, but it's very difficult to trump the constitution with a law (so long as there continue not to be 5+ democrats on scotus)

      Delete
  16. If you legitimately wanted to stop WWII you'd have killed Churchill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. Ignorance is rampant in the world . . .

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure 'legitimately' means what you think it means. But thinking may be difficult for you.

      Delete
    3. Anon x 2. I believe your keyboard has failed you.

      Delete
    4. Anon is correct in a disingenuous way.
      You can "stop a war" by surrendering. I doubt the British people would have enjoyed those consequences either, but look at the old pics of the Royal family members performing the National Socialist Party salute. The Royals thought there was something there for themselves (right or wrong they obviously thought it) and I doubt they were alone or Churchill would not have felt he needed a "no surrender" clause in Parliament's draft of him to lead a war cabinet.

      Delete
  17. I agree completely. In 1978-79, the Iranian mullahs d-double-dared us to give them second visitations of Huleku Khan and Temur Lengk, and Jimmy Carter appeased. Now they whine because their little plan to pull another embassy takeover got met with the planner being vaporized.

    However, I understand that Iran now puts an $80,000,000 on Trump's head. Maybe we should remind them that should they, or proxy such as Hezbollah or the US Antifa or Democrats, so much as urinate on the White House or some US Embassy fence, they can expect the fifty-two targets being hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You got that confused. Carter refused to give in, and authorized a military raid. It was Reagan who gave in to the Iranian mullahs.

      Delete
    2. Carter appeased the mullahs in so many ways that his failed rescue non-raid (directive was evacuation, not recapture of the embassy nor deterrence of future attacks) didn't really matter.

      It was that lazy anti-american policy where we don't bother to find out "what's going to happen next", but instead only focus on the shiny object in front of us (the Shah, in this case).

      Khomenei didn't trick Carter or Khomenei's liberal or communist allies when the revolution began. Everybody else was just surprised that Khomenei was actually serious about what he said his plans were for Iran.

      Trump *appears* to be treating Iran like it should be, as adults. It was Obama and his ilk who wanted to treat Iran as a "child in tantrum." "Sure, they said they were going to kill us all, but they're just upset, they don't really mean it." "Sure, they're hiding illicit nuke plants, but they can't really be a threat to us anyways, it's all just theater for their internal power struggles!"

      Sorry, the mullahs *should* be taken at their word. If the rest of Iran doesn't want the mullahs taken at their word, they should be supplanted.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  18. I see Chuck Shumer has told the media today that "this is not a game". He's right. That is why he and Nancy and maybe most of the Congress were not told ahead of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They weren't told ahead of time because Trump did not want the Iranians tipped off (yep...I went their).

      Delete
  19. > speaking to reporters on Air Force One said "we’re not leaving" unless Iraq "pays us back" for a US air base built in Iraq.

    "We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it." Trump told the AF1 reporter pool.

    That, however, wasn't enough, and Trump also made it clear that that in addition to billions in reimbursements, unless the US left on a "very friendly basis", the US would hit Iraq with "very big" sanctions like "they’ve never seen before ever."

    "If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

    And just to make it abundantly clear, Trump also added that "if there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq."

    Trump also addressed his Saturday threat to attack various Iranian cultural sites in retaliation to any escalation out of Tehran, threatening "major retaliation" on Iran if they "do anything" and saying that "they’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. they’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way."<

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-says-us-will-not-leave-iraq-unless-billions-air-base-are-repaid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only capital goods, but non-extractable portables as well. As in at some point during any withdrawal the bad guys and our former "allies" would attack, both to keep some of the valuables as well as "prove" their loyalty to their new masters.
      That and we have long needed restrictions on immigration from Islamic Supremacist countries as those "immigrants" are more accurately called unassimilatable colonists.
      Not just the Basij, but all of them continuing to go to Mosque will not permanently assimilate (I remember the Muslim who shot up the EL AL counter at LAX... who had while not attending mosque had attended a Jewish neighbor's wedding before reverting under the local Iman's influence)

      Delete
    2. Everyone seems to have missed that “culture center” is Iran-speak for the mansions of Iran’s ruling mullahs. Officially, that’s what they are called!
      Reference: The Tragedy of Islam by Mohamed Tawhidi, location 3925.

      Delete
    3. thought that was referencing mecca, medina, and maybe a few hussein sites..

      Delete
  20. I may not agree with everything Trump does, but his Fuck with us and I'll burn you down attitude is one I've long wished for in a President.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You're suggesting that the U.S. commits war crimes, but then I see you support Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The so-called Geneva Conventions (not counting the latest Russian addition the US never signed) do allow reprisals. And different "rules" against unlawful enemy combatants.

      Delete
    2. He was known for leading out-of-uniform regularly.

      Delete
  22. Iran was using proxy fighters to fight against Israel's proxy fighters. The US military. No more dead Christian goyim for Israel. Draft the jews to fight their own wars. I'm not supporting a satanic ZOG theocracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize that Islam, or at least certain major elements of it, have been at war with the Christian West for over a milennia? Or were they trying to conquer the Iberian peninsula and Vienna to get at Israel?

      Every single Jew could vanish from the face of the Earth, a la Thanos, and the Iranian mullahs would still want to take out the US, and all non-Islamic states. Your antisemitism has blinded you to reality, or are you assuming that the enemy of your enemy must be your friend, or at least an ally? Or should we just embrace the power of AND?

      Delete
    2. Anon, there's definitely a 'satanic ZOG theocracy' going on in your head right now. You should get help for it. Some nice doctor with a couch and some medication will help sort out that ZOG issue right away.

      Delete
    3. St0rmfr0nt is missing a 'tard.

      RY/
      Butch

      Delete
  23. Too many times the solution to ending evil is to simply send it hurdling into eternity and let God deal with it. 77 virgins are not what Soleimani is gappling with right now.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dip, what do you think of the theory that Quds force had been off limits for attacks since the wife of the Vincennes captain was car bombed? The "IC" feared retaliation but now Trump doesn't care about them. They are not on his team.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Just more bullshit pro-intervention hogwash, justified by the fact that American military personnel are in 137 other countries killing mo-foes without the one decent thing that would justify such behavior.

    The u.s. Congress did not declare war, nor did the President sign their war declaration.

    The part that is agreeable in this is...

    "We also should quietly, once the current cloud of dust settles, tell the clowns in Baghdad that we are leaving. They are not worth the life a single American. ..."

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Iraqi AUMF has not been repealed, had no sunset clause, and is still in force.
      There have been efforts to repeal it, but they haven't gone anywhere, even under Appeaser in Chief Obama.

      Delete
  26. Looks like Iran just achieved a successful hit on CNN.

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Followup reports indicate in addition to the earlier reported injury to CNN further hits to Rachel Maddow's credibility were sustained as well.

      Damage assessment teams are attempting to locate personnel qualified to judge whether there is a mathematical possibility of less than zero.

      JK

      Delete
    2. Iran seems to think it has Trump in a pickle. 'Enlightened' thought suggests .... this is an election year. Any significant provocation with Iran is going to impact oil prices. Oil prices impact gas prices, and high gas prices prevent re-election.
      But this is the same gambit the DNC played against Trump in the 2016 campaign with that 'gold star father' stunt.
      The trap was laid, and the trappers confident. Then Trump walked through the trap and kept walking while it clung futilely to his leg. I stopped betting against Trump's political successes long ago, even if his doom always and continually appears to be 'imminent'.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. Reckon #1482 the Iranians mistook that Ukrainian 747 for a B-52?

      JK

      Delete