Ok, here we go. As I am sure most of you know Iran and a certain Iranian general have been exploding in headlines lately, and in a shameless effort to draw more readers to my blog I have decided to weigh in on this matter outside of social media and memes.
Right, so first of all. General Soleimani was an officer in the Iranian Quds Force, a part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Last April the State Department, as well as the Department of the Treasury, listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Just so we are clear, for almost a year the IRGC has officially been designated as a terrorist organization. President Trump said in his statement,
Other countries that have listed Quds as a terrorist organization include Saudi Arabia (rich coming from them), Canada, and Bahrain. This is obviously not a case of the US just naming people and things it doesn't like as terrorists.
So there we have it; General Soleimani was a member of a terrorist organization. Since the US is currently embroiled in a War on Terrorism that is almost two decades long, I fail to see how the killing isn't justified.
I've seen people commenting how this was a move motivated by Israel and even Saudi Arabia, and that the US is a slave to either of those two countries.
Look, I'm really no fan of either of those countries on account of their horrible atrocities that they commit almost daily, and I love a good conspiracy theory, but I'm sorry; I just can not go along with that line of thinking. Not in this case.
General Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of Iraqis and Americans alike, as well as the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad this past December (US State Department).
I've seen a lot of armchair foreign policy experts saying that attacking this Iranian general is an act of war against Iran, and I sincerely ask them what they would call an attack on our Embassy. Embassies are not sovereign soil, as so many people claim (I'm fairly certain even I have made this claim recently), but these embassies do include US citizens and civilians at that.
Put simply, we were attacked. Our citizens were killed and injured. To retaliate with extreme prejudice is our prerogative.
No, the president did not have to inform Congress of such a move. As the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, he is allowed some leeway (Lawfare).
Again Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of Americans - he was responsible for attacks against Americans. His killing, while pissing off a lot of people, was justified.
Now comes the harder questions.
Would Soleimani have been responsible for killing American soldiers if we had not been in the Middle East fighting this farce of a war on terror? Or fighting against the "Civil War" in Syria that wasn't a civil war as it was the government of Syria fighting against foreign forces. Or fighting against Daesh - a terrorist organization that we helped create in the first place? Or fighting against allies that turned enemies because of our horrible foreign policy?
Probably not. Not unless he had a much larger and grander plan for attacks on US soil, much like those implemented between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden that kicked off this whole War on Terror (please, no comments on how Bush did 9/11 or jet fuel can't melt steel beams - comments on Building 7 are welcome).
So, how can we justify killing him if he wouldn't have killed us had we not been there in the first place? Because we did not make him pull the trigger. We made have made many enemies by our actions in the Middle East, but we do not make them strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people. We do not make them choose to attack us. That they do all on their own - just like we also made the choice to go to war against an idea.
This post has so far been about General Soleimani, and not on Iran itself, let me change that.
I feel like Iran has been poking the hornet's nest for a very long time - a time that started with the hostage situation of the 1970s and has just kept on going since then. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia doesn't like Iran, and Israel is no fan either. We do seem to be friendly with both of those countries and it does seem like we do their dirty work for them sometimes.
Let us be clear here. Iran does not like us.
President Trump knew that this strike against General Soleimani was going to make a lot of people very angry and has straight up told Iran that if they retaliate then we will strike 52 sites.
Look, I do not want a war with Iran. As a libertarian, or Classical Liberal as I prefer, I follow the NAP - the Non-Aggression Principal. The war in Iraq failed the NAP, most of our wars as of late, airstrikes against targets (looking at you President Obama), and other military actions fail the NAP.
The counterstrike against Soleimani does not fail the NAP because it was a strike against us, we were defending ourselves.
If Iran does decide to attack us, then war with them will not violate the NAP. We are allowed to protect and defend ourselves.
All of that being said, I do not want a war with Iran. I do not want a war with any country. I wish the US would go back to a foreign policy of non-interventionism and just stay to ourselves. We are not the World's Police, and that we try to be makes us a lot of enemies.
You might say that there is no way that we can possibly pull out of Iraq or other places, too many of our allies depend on our military might to keep their enemies at bay, and other things as well.
We can pull out of Iraq. Honestly, we have tried to help Iraq. After we captured Sadam and executed him we tried to build them up into a democracy. After their first elections, we should have only stayed in an advisory position. The Iraqi people do not want to be governed as we want them to be governed. Of course, there are also the different factions and peoples who live in Iraq; you have the Kurds who live in Northern Iraq and don't really want anything to do with the rest of Iraq, you have the Sunnis who hate the Shiites, you have the Shiites who hate the Sunnis. None of those peoples will ever be fairly represented in a government that was forced on them after the First World War.
We went back into Iraq after initially pulling out because of Daesh. I don't care who you are, or what you know, we- the United States - had a hand in creating them. Just like we had a hand in creating Osama bin Laden. We don't need to be in Iraq any longer. We need to leave them to their own devices, and if they fail then they fail.
Oh, I know that sounds harsh, but how many other countries have failed? How many other countries have fallen to foreign invaders over the eons? What I am trying to say is that it's not up to us. Will it suck? Absolutely. But it isn't up to us, and the more we try to make it up to us the more Americans will die not fighting for our freedoms, but someone else's.
As for our allies. I see the US being criticized for having the largest defense budget out of the next however many largest nations. There is a reason for that. We have so many bases in different countries for strategic purposes, but this also helps our allies where we have our bases as it deters any who might want to attack those countries. Our allies rely on our military presence to maintain peace, so they don't have to spend so much money on things and can provide nice free services such as free healthcare and college, and then they choose to criticize us.
I get it. I really do, to many others in the world, it looks like the US is doing some major empire building. And I don't suggest pulling our troops back to appease our allies and our critics. I suggest pulling our troops back so we can cut back on defense spending to secure other countries. I'd say it would help out our deficit in the long run, suddenly freeing up so much money, but let's be honest here - the politicians would just find a way to spend all of the money.
I also suggest that we pull back troops because of my non-interventionism stance. We have made a lot of enemies because we intervene every chance that we get. I'm not saying let's pull back our troops to appease our enemies, I'm saying let's pull back our troops so we stop creating so many enemies and don't have to send off our sons and daughters to fight and die in someone else's war.
Let me say this: if your whole argument for supporting everything that our government is doing with our troops overseas is because our troops are fighting for our freedoms then I have some sad news for you. Absolutely none of your freedoms have been fought for in this War on Terror. None of your freedoms were fought for in the Gulf War. None of our freedoms were fought for in Vietnam, or Korea. None of our freedoms are currently being threatened by foreign enemies. The last time that the US justly fought in a war was the Second World War, after we had been attacked. So not quite 100 years since and how many conflicts have we been involved in that have nothing to do with our freedoms?
And of course, in WWII we were attacked, what followed was retaliatory, and in our defense.
So, if Iran does attack us in any capacity we would be justified in declaring war, even if they do so in retaliation for us killing their general. I don't want war with Iran. I don't want war at all. I do not think that yet another war would serve us any good. And of course, I do not want any more loss of life to happen. Should it happen after Iran attacks us, it will be justified, however.
No, even if Iran were to attack us and we went to war with them I would not want to see the country leveled and turned into a glass factory or a parking lot. There are innocent people there. There are culturally important sites there. There are plenty of things to try to preserve there and should we be engaged in a war we should try to limit the collateral damage that will result from said war.
Now, let us move on to other things...
Is it racist for us to have attacked General Soleimani? No, don't be stupid. The attack against him had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with the fact that he murdered Americans. I know of no race that holds the monopoly on killing Americans. For you people who automatically want to say "Muslims" then also don't be stupid; Islam is a religion, Muslims are those who follow Islam and can be from any race, such as Arabic, Persian (that's the people from Iran), Asian, African, and even the Irish guy down the street.
Is it racist that we fight against Muslims at all? No, don't be stupid. Muslims aren't a race, stop trying to make Muslim a race to fit your world view.
If your name is Rose McGowan then I really don't care what your stance on literally anything is. You were easily the worst thing about the show "Charmed" and it was already a bad show even to 90s standards.
If your name is Colin Kapernick then I doubly don't care what your stance on anything is. You claim racism over everything and it has lost any meaning. Also, I don't respect you as a person. Also, just stop. No one is going to sign you. Fire your PR person... or hire one.
If your name is Shaun King, just shut up already. Every time I read something by you I am reminded of that scene from Billy Madison during the debate. Please just go sit down and stop pretending to be Black. Everyone knows you're not Black, and honestly, nothing you say will have merit until you accept that fact.
If you are a celebrity or an athlete of any kind then nothing you say has any bearing on my opinion towards politics, foreign policy, or literally anything other than what movie or game to watch. If you're going to insist on trying to shame people into believing like you then clean your own house first. After you've cleaned your own house, sit down and shut up. Being an actor or athlete in no way makes you qualified to speak on anything outside of acting or sports.
What makes my opinion so valid then? Absolutely nothing. I am just a veteran who is putting his thoughts on a hot topic in digital format for others to read in hopes that more people will view his page. Oh, I suppose that as a veteran I can have an opinion on war - hell I should have an opinion on war given that I actually went to one and got a t-shirt (as well as a plethora of mental issues). But the rest is just my own personal opinion.
In conclusion, killing General Soleimani was justified, I don't want war with Iran but if they attack us it will be justified, and Hollywood sucks.
Right, so first of all. General Soleimani was an officer in the Iranian Quds Force, a part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Last April the State Department, as well as the Department of the Treasury, listed the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
Just so we are clear, for almost a year the IRGC has officially been designated as a terrorist organization. President Trump said in his statement,
"This unprecedented step, led by the Department of State, recognizes the reality that Iran is not only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft. The IRGC is the Iranian government’s primary means of directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign." (see State Department link above)President Trump also noted that this was the first time the US had ever listed a part of a government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Other countries that have listed Quds as a terrorist organization include Saudi Arabia (rich coming from them), Canada, and Bahrain. This is obviously not a case of the US just naming people and things it doesn't like as terrorists.
So there we have it; General Soleimani was a member of a terrorist organization. Since the US is currently embroiled in a War on Terrorism that is almost two decades long, I fail to see how the killing isn't justified.
I've seen people commenting how this was a move motivated by Israel and even Saudi Arabia, and that the US is a slave to either of those two countries.
Look, I'm really no fan of either of those countries on account of their horrible atrocities that they commit almost daily, and I love a good conspiracy theory, but I'm sorry; I just can not go along with that line of thinking. Not in this case.
General Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of Iraqis and Americans alike, as well as the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad this past December (US State Department).
I've seen a lot of armchair foreign policy experts saying that attacking this Iranian general is an act of war against Iran, and I sincerely ask them what they would call an attack on our Embassy. Embassies are not sovereign soil, as so many people claim (I'm fairly certain even I have made this claim recently), but these embassies do include US citizens and civilians at that.
Put simply, we were attacked. Our citizens were killed and injured. To retaliate with extreme prejudice is our prerogative.
No, the president did not have to inform Congress of such a move. As the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, he is allowed some leeway (Lawfare).
Again Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of Americans - he was responsible for attacks against Americans. His killing, while pissing off a lot of people, was justified.
Now comes the harder questions.
Would Soleimani have been responsible for killing American soldiers if we had not been in the Middle East fighting this farce of a war on terror? Or fighting against the "Civil War" in Syria that wasn't a civil war as it was the government of Syria fighting against foreign forces. Or fighting against Daesh - a terrorist organization that we helped create in the first place? Or fighting against allies that turned enemies because of our horrible foreign policy?
Probably not. Not unless he had a much larger and grander plan for attacks on US soil, much like those implemented between Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden that kicked off this whole War on Terror (please, no comments on how Bush did 9/11 or jet fuel can't melt steel beams - comments on Building 7 are welcome).
So, how can we justify killing him if he wouldn't have killed us had we not been there in the first place? Because we did not make him pull the trigger. We made have made many enemies by our actions in the Middle East, but we do not make them strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people. We do not make them choose to attack us. That they do all on their own - just like we also made the choice to go to war against an idea.
This post has so far been about General Soleimani, and not on Iran itself, let me change that.
I feel like Iran has been poking the hornet's nest for a very long time - a time that started with the hostage situation of the 1970s and has just kept on going since then. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia doesn't like Iran, and Israel is no fan either. We do seem to be friendly with both of those countries and it does seem like we do their dirty work for them sometimes.
Let us be clear here. Iran does not like us.
President Trump knew that this strike against General Soleimani was going to make a lot of people very angry and has straight up told Iran that if they retaliate then we will strike 52 sites.
Look, I do not want a war with Iran. As a libertarian, or Classical Liberal as I prefer, I follow the NAP - the Non-Aggression Principal. The war in Iraq failed the NAP, most of our wars as of late, airstrikes against targets (looking at you President Obama), and other military actions fail the NAP.
The counterstrike against Soleimani does not fail the NAP because it was a strike against us, we were defending ourselves.
If Iran does decide to attack us, then war with them will not violate the NAP. We are allowed to protect and defend ourselves.
All of that being said, I do not want a war with Iran. I do not want a war with any country. I wish the US would go back to a foreign policy of non-interventionism and just stay to ourselves. We are not the World's Police, and that we try to be makes us a lot of enemies.
You might say that there is no way that we can possibly pull out of Iraq or other places, too many of our allies depend on our military might to keep their enemies at bay, and other things as well.
We can pull out of Iraq. Honestly, we have tried to help Iraq. After we captured Sadam and executed him we tried to build them up into a democracy. After their first elections, we should have only stayed in an advisory position. The Iraqi people do not want to be governed as we want them to be governed. Of course, there are also the different factions and peoples who live in Iraq; you have the Kurds who live in Northern Iraq and don't really want anything to do with the rest of Iraq, you have the Sunnis who hate the Shiites, you have the Shiites who hate the Sunnis. None of those peoples will ever be fairly represented in a government that was forced on them after the First World War.
We went back into Iraq after initially pulling out because of Daesh. I don't care who you are, or what you know, we- the United States - had a hand in creating them. Just like we had a hand in creating Osama bin Laden. We don't need to be in Iraq any longer. We need to leave them to their own devices, and if they fail then they fail.
Oh, I know that sounds harsh, but how many other countries have failed? How many other countries have fallen to foreign invaders over the eons? What I am trying to say is that it's not up to us. Will it suck? Absolutely. But it isn't up to us, and the more we try to make it up to us the more Americans will die not fighting for our freedoms, but someone else's.
As for our allies. I see the US being criticized for having the largest defense budget out of the next however many largest nations. There is a reason for that. We have so many bases in different countries for strategic purposes, but this also helps our allies where we have our bases as it deters any who might want to attack those countries. Our allies rely on our military presence to maintain peace, so they don't have to spend so much money on things and can provide nice free services such as free healthcare and college, and then they choose to criticize us.
I get it. I really do, to many others in the world, it looks like the US is doing some major empire building. And I don't suggest pulling our troops back to appease our allies and our critics. I suggest pulling our troops back so we can cut back on defense spending to secure other countries. I'd say it would help out our deficit in the long run, suddenly freeing up so much money, but let's be honest here - the politicians would just find a way to spend all of the money.
I also suggest that we pull back troops because of my non-interventionism stance. We have made a lot of enemies because we intervene every chance that we get. I'm not saying let's pull back our troops to appease our enemies, I'm saying let's pull back our troops so we stop creating so many enemies and don't have to send off our sons and daughters to fight and die in someone else's war.
Let me say this: if your whole argument for supporting everything that our government is doing with our troops overseas is because our troops are fighting for our freedoms then I have some sad news for you. Absolutely none of your freedoms have been fought for in this War on Terror. None of your freedoms were fought for in the Gulf War. None of our freedoms were fought for in Vietnam, or Korea. None of our freedoms are currently being threatened by foreign enemies. The last time that the US justly fought in a war was the Second World War, after we had been attacked. So not quite 100 years since and how many conflicts have we been involved in that have nothing to do with our freedoms?
And of course, in WWII we were attacked, what followed was retaliatory, and in our defense.
So, if Iran does attack us in any capacity we would be justified in declaring war, even if they do so in retaliation for us killing their general. I don't want war with Iran. I don't want war at all. I do not think that yet another war would serve us any good. And of course, I do not want any more loss of life to happen. Should it happen after Iran attacks us, it will be justified, however.
No, even if Iran were to attack us and we went to war with them I would not want to see the country leveled and turned into a glass factory or a parking lot. There are innocent people there. There are culturally important sites there. There are plenty of things to try to preserve there and should we be engaged in a war we should try to limit the collateral damage that will result from said war.
Now, let us move on to other things...
Is it racist for us to have attacked General Soleimani? No, don't be stupid. The attack against him had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with the fact that he murdered Americans. I know of no race that holds the monopoly on killing Americans. For you people who automatically want to say "Muslims" then also don't be stupid; Islam is a religion, Muslims are those who follow Islam and can be from any race, such as Arabic, Persian (that's the people from Iran), Asian, African, and even the Irish guy down the street.
Is it racist that we fight against Muslims at all? No, don't be stupid. Muslims aren't a race, stop trying to make Muslim a race to fit your world view.
If your name is Rose McGowan then I really don't care what your stance on literally anything is. You were easily the worst thing about the show "Charmed" and it was already a bad show even to 90s standards.
If your name is Colin Kapernick then I doubly don't care what your stance on anything is. You claim racism over everything and it has lost any meaning. Also, I don't respect you as a person. Also, just stop. No one is going to sign you. Fire your PR person... or hire one.
If your name is Shaun King, just shut up already. Every time I read something by you I am reminded of that scene from Billy Madison during the debate. Please just go sit down and stop pretending to be Black. Everyone knows you're not Black, and honestly, nothing you say will have merit until you accept that fact.
If you are a celebrity or an athlete of any kind then nothing you say has any bearing on my opinion towards politics, foreign policy, or literally anything other than what movie or game to watch. If you're going to insist on trying to shame people into believing like you then clean your own house first. After you've cleaned your own house, sit down and shut up. Being an actor or athlete in no way makes you qualified to speak on anything outside of acting or sports.
What makes my opinion so valid then? Absolutely nothing. I am just a veteran who is putting his thoughts on a hot topic in digital format for others to read in hopes that more people will view his page. Oh, I suppose that as a veteran I can have an opinion on war - hell I should have an opinion on war given that I actually went to one and got a t-shirt (as well as a plethora of mental issues). But the rest is just my own personal opinion.
In conclusion, killing General Soleimani was justified, I don't want war with Iran but if they attack us it will be justified, and Hollywood sucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment