US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

perrito caliente

pearcider wrote: »

Why don’t you head off to Iran and see how you get on? People vote with their feet. Which is why millions try to get into the west every year despite the numerous barriers to doing so.

I have to say, I find all the low level thinking around whether or not Iran is a suitable travel destination amusing. Hardly surprising that the 'might is right' crowd are not deep thinkers I suppose.

Manic Moran

So here's a bit of an irony/oddity.

The US Carrier currently in the Gulf, USS Harry S. Truman is commanded by a chap call-sign "Hak". Presumably nobody in flight school could pronounce his full name, Hakimzadeh, he's an Iranian who left age 11 in 1979.

That could have led to a fascinating press conference.

partyguinness

Yurt! wrote: »

The US inherited the Middle East's security issues from the British and French, and lord knows they've made a hames of it from time to time - it does however need to be acknowledged that there are some extremely bad actors in the region, much worse than what comes out of Langley and the Pentagon, and the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guard thugs are one of them.

The US no more inherited the Middle East than Ireland did. The US voluntarily decided to meddle in the Middle East for its own selfish economic purposes.

What do you think this US act have done for the latest Revolutionary Guard recruitment drive.

Then Trump threatens to bomb cultural sites. FFS....even cultural and historical sites were off limits for the Nazis..!

Let's not forget the US killed a top Government official from an internationally recognised sovereign State who was visiting a foreign State.

It was an illegal act which constituted blatant state sponsored terrorism if it even matters anymore. The US is not actually at war with Iran it should be noted.

Cheerful Spring2

Manic Moran wrote: »

So here's a bit of an irony/oddity.

The US Carrier currently in the Gulf, USS Harry S. Truman is commanded by a chap call-sign "Hak". Presumably nobody in flight school could pronounce his full name, Hakimzadeh, he's an Iranian who left age 11 in 1979.

That could have led to a fascinating press conference.

Manic do you have idea what they hit in the images i posted?
Are the giants tents or buildings, can't tell?

pearcider

alastair wrote: »

When are the Taliban getting the news about the invincibility of the US military? Or the Vietnamese fir that matter? The US wouldn’t get anywhere hear a month of bombardment, they don’t have any allies in this except for the Saudis, and the International blowback from that degree of pig-headedness would be a serious problem for them.

The Taliban have achieved nothing except keeping their country in the dark ages.

Vietnam was different with widespread opposition to the war within the US and both USSR and China supporting the Viet Cong with money and weapons.

The US could wipe out Iran’s military and government in a few weeks with air power alone. I don’t think anybody seriously questions this.

Yurt2

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Really, you consider that acceptable treatment of people protesting over worsening living conditions? In a supposed first world country, They were quick to hold Venezuela to account

I made no value judgement on French policing. Heavy handed police tactics on the streets of Bergerac are in no way morally equivalent to a theocratic regime ordering their personal paramilitary force to open fire indiscriminately on thousands. Some French police have been put through the court system for their response. You understand why this won't happen in Iran right? I'm genuinely not trying to be patronising.

You know this. You're doing Whataboutery again.

markodaly

So all in all, the US kill the top Iranian General and Iran with all their bluster destroy a few hangers based in Iraq.
Victory for the US there.

Iran know that the US can destroy its military capability in a number of weeks. Ground occupation is something else. It is also clear that the US have no interest in a long protracted ground war. The missiles were from domestic consumption only.

Iran are kinda boxed in now.

Yurt2

partyguinness wrote: »

The US no more inherited the Middle East than Ireland did. The US voluntarily decided to meddle in the Middle East for its own selfish economic purposes.

What do you think this US act have done for the latest Revolutionary Guard recruitment drive.

Then Trump threatens to bomb cultural sites. FFS....even cultural and historical sites were off limits for the Nazis..!

Let's not forget the US killed a top Government official from an internationally recognised sovereign State who was visiting a foreign State.

It was an illegal act which constituted blatant state sponsored terrorism if it even matters anymore. The US is not actually at war with Iran it should be noted.

The guy personally managed and funded proscribed terror groups across the region. I don't agree with the assassination, but I'm not weeping for him if I'm to be honest. They chap had more blood on his hands than you'll ever know.

BloodBath

quokula wrote: »

It was seven countries in 5 years, starting in 2001. So that period ended in 2006, while Bush was still in office - i.e. it was entirely a plan for that administration, and Clarke attributed the plan to Donald Rumsfeld, who also retired from politics in 2006. Clarke also clarified that it wasn't necessarily officially put into action but was the idea Rumsfeld was pushing.

The US also demonstrably haven't invaded or regime changed the other 6 countries in the intervening years.

Yes they have. Every country on the list. It just took longer than they had planned. If it was entirely a plan for and by that admin then why did several of them take place under Obama and now Iran is left under Trump. It clearly was put into action and is proof that American foreign policy has almost nothing to do with the president.

Afghanistan - Bush

Iraq - Bush

Syria - Obama - Stalled and halted by the Russians.

Libya - Obama

Sudan - Obama - Split into 2 countries in 2011 after funding of militias by the states to seize control of oil rich regions. They did the same many times in the past. Panama used to be part of Columbia. Split so the yanks could take control of the canal.

The New York Times reported that "South Sudan is in many ways an American creation, carved out of war-torn Sudan in a referendum largely orchestrated by the United States, its fragile institutions nurtured with billions of dollars in American aid."[118] The U.S. government's long-standing sanctions against Sudan were officially removed from applicability to newly independent South Sudan in December 2011, and senior RSS officials participated in a high-level international engagement conference in Washington, D.C., to help connect foreign investors with the RSS and South Sudanese private sector representatives.

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

Lebanon - Obama - Civil war and regime change took place around 2008 as well.

partyguinness

Yurt! wrote: »

Let them at it? If they kept their nonense within their borders there may not be such an issue. Tell the families of the 85 dead in Argentina your warm thoughts, or the families of Iranian dissidents shot dead in suburbs of European cities, or in the provinces of Lebanon, Iraq and Syria that have been destabilised by Iran militias.

You know the distinction between France and Iran. I don't need to explain it to you or anyone reading this.

Well aren't you just the Knight in shining armour up there on your high horse and bleeding heart. Going to save the world are we?

If you want to play that game: what about the thousands of dead children etc in Yemen blown to pieces by weapons supplied by the US and UK? What about the children in Cambodia still getting their limbs blown off from US land mines. France in North Africa. How many have the Chinese killed? I won't go on as you get the picture- but yet here we are in little old Ireland all of a sudden hot, bothered an indignant about Iran because the US needs a bogey man.

I am not defending Iran at all but you are missing my point completely. What Iran does or does not do is no different to what many many other countries do all over the world with the US being the biggest culprit.

But now we all jump on the bandwagon and start getting high and mighty about Iran all of a sudden why because the US says so.

It's a joke.

partyguinness

Yurt! wrote: »

The guy personally managed and funded proscribed terror groups across the region. I don't agree with the assassination, but I'm not weeping for him if I'm to be honest. They chap had more blood on his hands than you'll ever know.

As matter of interest, would your response be the same if Trump was assassinated?

After all, look at the hundreds of thousands of people killed by US weapons all around the world. Or is that somehow acceptable?

BloodBath

pearcider wrote: »

The US wants peace and stability for the region as that way the economy grows and everybody does well.

Haha. You must be American to be this ignorant.

charlie14

notobtuse wrote: »

One thing you’ve got to admit is if this was gist of Iran’s response then the killing of Soleimani was a major victory for Trump.

How so ?


The US has been told to get out of Iraq by the Iraqi`s.
Iranians made themselves look like good neighbour and statesmen like by informing Iraq before the missile strike. Unlike the US with their drone strike.
With the defeat of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq the Iranians have shown they are major players in the region.

They have shown they have the missile capability to hit US bases anywhere in the region



America by killing the Iranian general Soleimani have made heroes of Iran to both Arabs and Persians alike and have scuppered any lingering hopes they may have had of any "coalition of the willing" in the future.


On a cost to benefit analysis the US do not come out of the killing of Soleimani on the plus side.

Cheerful Spring2

markodaly wrote: »

So all in all, the US kill the top Iranian General and Iran with all their bluster destroy a few hangers based in Iraq.
Victory for the US there.

Iran know that the US can destroy its military capability in a number of weeks. Ground occupation is something else. It is also clear that the US have no interest in a long protracted ground war. The missiles were from domestic consumption only.

Iran are kinda boxed in now.

Trump redline was if Iran attacked any of US equipment or US base it was a war. He assumed they were militarily ineffective like Iraq. He got a taste of what Iran capable of and they likely have thousands of ballistic missiles.. I not sure they even counting what Iran proxies have stored away. They're a closer US/ base to Iran and had enough of US soldiers assigned there to cause mass casualties, They made a clear choice to not up the ante. This was a warning. Trump got the message for now. 

If Iran was Iraq they be bombing the crap out of it right now. 

ArchXStanton

BloodBath wrote: »

Haha. You must be American to be this ignorant.

I'm sure the people of all the countries the US attacked thought the same as bombs were falling on them

"these people really want peace and stability for this region and for us to do well"

Give me a fcuking break with this horse****

mulbot

markodaly wrote: »

So all in all, the US kill the top Iranian General and Iran with all their bluster destroy a few hangers based in Iraq.
Victory for the US there.

Iran know that the US can destroy its military capability in a number of weeks. Ground occupation is something else. It is also clear that the US have no interest in a long protracted ground war. The missiles were from domestic consumption only.

Iran are kinda boxed in now.

Not at all. Iran said it would retaliate, they wrre threatened on the world stage by the US thst they would be hit "very hard, and very fast" and did that scare them off, no no,. Their response as they said would be measured and it was,. America has made a fool of itself once again here, Iran for the win

Ironicname

BloodBath wrote:

Haha. You must be American to be this ignorant.

That took a nasty turn. Ugly generalisation there

MadYaker

pearcider wrote: »

The US wants peace and stability for the region as that way the economy grows and everybody does well. Trump is a business man. He has carefully avoided war and sought to bring Russia and North Korea back into the fold unlike the true war monger Hilary Clinton. He called off a massive air strike on Iran a few weeks ago when the planes were in the air. This despite numerous provocative actions by Iran in 2019.

In May they attacked several oil tankers.
In June they shot down a US drone.
In July they seized a civilian oil tanker.
In September they attacked a Saudi oil refinery.
In December they attacked the US embassy in Iraq.

They’re a bad neighbour and have been a rogue state since they took over the US embassy 40 years ago. What you see is exactly what you get from an Islamic theocracy. They don’t even hide their extremist views and their hatred for the west and our way of life. They’re anti women, anti lgbt and against a free press and political opposition. They’re a problem for the free world which sooner or later will have to be solved. Most probably by Uncle Sam since nobody else has the capability.

The entire US economy and society is founded on a continuous supply of cheap oil. That’s where their interest in the the Middle East starts and ends. If you think they want prosperity you’re extremely naive. It’s not that they want people in those countries to suffer, they don’t care either way as long as the oil is flowing. Also none of this would even be happening if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the deal Obama made with Iran. Obama’s administration put in work there and when he left office Iran / US relations were about as good as they can be. Trump has destroyed all that.

notobtuse

The Ukrainian airline wreckage hadn’t even come to rest when Iran came out and blamed mechanical failure. Done without the benefit of an investigation or information from the ‘black boxes’ (which Iran now refuses to turn over)? Then the Ukraine halted all flights to Iran which is not something normally done because of mechanical difficulties in a crash. It’s looking more and more like Iran accidentally shot down that airline. Should they be putting some of those palettes of cash Obama gave them away to pay victims?

Or is it nothing to see here... please move along... and, oh yeah... Orange Man Bad!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-plane-crash-shootdown-ukraine-boeing-latest-a9275051.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1578490015

mulbot

MadYaker wrote: »

The entire US economy and society is founded on a continuous supply of cheap oil. That’s where their interest in the the Middle East starts and ends. If you think they want prosperity you’re extremely naive. It’s not that they want people in those countries to suffer, they don’t care either way as long as the oil is flowing. Also none of this would even be happening if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the deal Obama made with Iran. Obama’s administration put in work there and when he left office Iran / US relations were about as good as they can be. Trump has destroyed all that.

Under severe Israeli pressure it seems

Outlaw Pete

mulbot wrote: »

America has made a fool of itself once again here, Iran for the win

"Iran for the win" ? /Cringe

Good to see Pres. Trump call out the last administration. Obama has blood on his hands for funding bastards like Soleimani.

It's absurd to hear the left bleating about Trump, suggesting he wanted a war with Iran, given how many times he had previously refused to retaliate to their aggression.

BloodBath

Ironicname wrote: »

That took a nasty turn. Ugly generalisation there

Sadly a true one.

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Trump redline was if Iran attacked any of US equipment or US base it was a war. He assumed they were militarily ineffective like Iraq. He got a taste of what Iran capable of and they likely have thousands of ballistic missiles.. I not sure they even counting what Iran proxies have stored away. They're a closer US/ base to Iran and had enough of US soldiers assigned there to cause mass casualties, They made a clear choice to not up the ante. This was a warning. Trump got the message for now. 

If Iran was Iraq they be bombing the crap out of it right now. 

Na. The US won this. Although Iran really only cares how it goes down in Iran. It suits both of them. This was entirely scripted.

pearcider

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Trump redline was if Iran attacked any of US equipment or US base it was a war. He assumed they were militarily ineffective like Iraq. He got a taste of what Iran capable of and they likely have thousands of ballistic missiles.. I not sure they even counting what Iran proxies have stored away. They're a closer US/ base to Iran and had enough of US soldiers assigned there to cause mass casualties, They made a clear choice to not up the ante. This was a warning. Trump got the message for now. 

If Iran was Iraq they be bombing the crap out of it right now. 

Wishful thinking by an anti American. People like you sure enjoy your freedom of expression that living in the west grants you but somehow glorify a sectarian state like Iran and don’t wish similar freedom for the ordinary Iranian.

The US suffered no casualties whereas Iran lost their top military commander. That is a major blow to an insular regime like the ayatollahs.

The Iranian response was clearly choreographed to the Iraqis to avoid any casualties. They know if they had killed any Americans then Trump would have responded with devastating air strikes which may well have collapsed their regime.

Ironicname

BloodBath wrote:

Sadly a true one.

Americans are ignorant? I disagree.

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Na. The US won this. Although Iran really only cares how it goes down in Iran. It suits both of them. This was entirely scripted.

I think this is the most logical explanation. Why else would the Iranians have told Iraq which base they were going to hit? The Iraqis were obviously going to warn the yanks.

ArchXStanton

pearcider wrote: »

Wishful thinking by an anti American. People like you sure enjoy your freedom of expression that living in the west grants you but somehow glorify a sectarian state like Iran and don’t wish similar freedom for the ordinary Iranian.

The US suffered no casualties whereas Iran lost their top military commander. That is a major blow to an insular regime like the ayatollahs.

The Iranian response was clearly choreographed to the Iraqis to avoid any casualties. They know if they had killed any Americans then Trump would have responded with devastating air strikes which may well have collapsed their regime.

More fool you if you think Trump gives a fiddlers about any of his cannon fodder on the frontline

Yurt2

partyguinness wrote: »

Well aren't you just the Knight in shining armour up there on your high horse and bleeding heart. Going to save the world are we?

If you want to play that game: what about the thousands of dead children etc in Yemen blown to pieces by weapons supplied by the US and UK? What about the children in Cambodia still getting their limbs blown off from US land mines. France in North Africa. How many have the Chinese killed? I won't go on as you get the picture- but yet here we are in little old Ireland all of a sudden hot, bothered an indignant about Iran because the US needs a bogey man.

I am not defending Iran at all but you are missing my point completely. What Iran does or does not do is no different to what many many other countries do all over the world with the US being the biggest culprit.

But now we all jump on the bandwagon and start getting high and mighty about Iran all of a sudden why because the US says so.

It's a joke.

More likely because I know people that were exiled from Iran post 79. I take what they say about their homeland more seriously than someone on the internet.

Bleeding heart? I have to laugh at that one a little.

I offered no defense in this thread about the US in Cambodia, Yemen or the Moon for that matter. I'm merely stating the obvious that the US is not as bad as you make them out to be (never attribute malice what can be explained by stupidity) and the Iranian government are much worse than you're off-handedly suggesting.

Put down the Noam Chomsky book - there are bad people out there that don't care for the niceties of our human rights and the liberal world order, not to mention those of the population they preside over. From time to time they need to be confronted, and I'm comfortable with the US doing the confrontation (for all their ills).

ceadaoin.

mulbot wrote: »

Who knows but the US looks fairly foolish now with the big talk of hitting Iran hard etc with shiny new weapons if they attempted to attack US bases. Maybe it'll put some manners on the US.

Sure the US were foolish to you yesterday too when you were drooling at the thought of Iran's attack actually doing some damage and the US escalating things further. They cant win in your eyes but luckily for the rest of us, things seem to have calmed down for now.

notobtuse

charlie14 wrote: »

How so ?


The US has been told to get out of Iraq by the Iraqi`s.
Iranians made themselves look like good neighbour and statesmen like by informing Iraq before the missile strike. Unlike the US with their drone strike.
With the defeat of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq the Iranians have shown they are major players in the region.

They have shown they have the missile capability to hit US bases anywhere in the region



America by killing the Iranian general Soleimani have made heroes of Iran to both Arabs and Persians alike and have scuppered any lingering hopes they may have had of any "coalition of the willing" in the future.


On a cost to benefit analysis the US do not come out of the killing of Soleimani on the plus side.

US troops aren't going anywhere. They also voted to kick troops out when Obama was president. It was a non-binding vote.

And the US usually doesn't care about cost to benefit analysis in foreign matters... much to my chagrin.

Trump looks good because he did his job protection American servicemen and citizens with taking out of the general which resulted in only a symbolic response and no causalities.