Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Options
1…99100102104105…123

Comments

  • Options
    #3032
    mickdoocey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭mickdoocey


    delighted both America and iran have backed down. hopefully it stays like this.
    when I heard it was confirmed no deaths from the Iranian missiles I sensed iran were putting on a show
    credit to both trump and his team and to the Iranians
    now hopefully Europe and Russia can get involved as Trump suggested and bring real peace to the region .


  • Options
    #3033
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    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.

    Ireland is far more dependent on oil that the US. Moreover we are far more economically dependent on the US than Iran. Your anti American position is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #3034
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    notobtuse wrote: »
    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.

    Trump looks like even more of an idiot now on the world stage and someone not to be trusted, from assasinating a general on someone else's territory to threatening to attack cultural sites


  • Options
    #3035
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    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.

    Iranians had freedoms in the 50's. It was the US that toppled Mosaddegh because he nationalised the oil. We all know this has nothing to do with "freedoms" though.

    Your buddies the Saudis aren't exactly a free society.


  • Options
    #3036
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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 see it differently Iran did not want to start a devastating war that would impact its neighbours and itself. Iran will experience losses but to US will suffer substantial losses too in that region if all war commenced. They're not Iraq and they have adapted for this war for the last thirty years.. They had no clue what Trump would do later, they just gave him a way out to avoid the big war. They were bracing to go all in if Trump decided to. 


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3037
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    mickdoocey wrote:
    delighted both America and iran have backed down. hopefully it stays like this. when I heard it was confirmed no deaths from the Iranian missiles I sensed iran were putting on a show credit to both trump and his team and to the Iranians now hopefully Europe and Russia can get involved as Trump suggested and bring real peace to the region .

    ****ing hell. How dare you come on here and not take a side and be a prick to everyone who disagrees with you?

    **** off with your level headed comment and let the real men shout about how much we hate trump/iran


  • Options
    #3038
    tdf7187
    Registered Users Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭tdf7187


    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.

    Most European countries have much worse oil dependencies.


  • Options
    #3039
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    Manic do you have idea what they hit in the images i posted?
    Are the giants tents or buildings, can't tell?

    The first image is closer to giant tents. I can't offhand recall the names of the things, but they are steel-framed structures with fabric covering. The USAF and Army has quite a few designs for the things. Designed to keep the sun and rain off, not provide protection.

    170208-F-NG816-088.JPG

    090608-F-3623T-102.JPG

    Not sure about the other image.


  • Options
    #3040
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    partyguinness wrote: »
    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?

    Trump (I'll qualify this by saying I don't like the guy) is the elected president of a sovereign nation. Suleimani was the most prominent Iranian general practicing the darkest of the dark arts across the region, stoking the flames of war and sectarian conflict.

    Above all he was a military man, and military men engaging in such things must reconcile themselves with their fate if it catches up with them. I'm sure even western operatives who play with fire need to accept this in their hearts as well. That is the logic of war and Suleimani was well practiced in war.


  • Options
    #3041
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Iranians had freedoms in the 50's. It was the US that toppled Mosaddegh because he nationalised the oil. We all know this has nothing to do with "freedoms" though.

    Your buddies the Saudis aren't exactly a free society.

    The 1950s was a long time ago. All the politicians from that era are dead and moreover the west was engaged in a titanic struggle with an expansionist and dangerous Soviet Union. The ends justified the means and the west could not afford to have a socialist regime in such a strategic state.

    You are defending theocratic Iran today with absolutely no justification other than you hate America. The ironic thing is Ireland have perhaps benefitted more than any other nation in the world from the Pax America.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3042
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    tdf7187 wrote: »
    Most European countries have much worse oil dependencies.

    Indeed. Most Irish people filling up their cars don't make the link between their lifestyle and the security of the middle East. The device they post from almost certainly was sailed through the Straights or Hormuz.

    It sucks and it's a dirty business, but some nation or combination of nations (ideally if the region got its sh*t together) needs to provide for it.


  • Options
    #3043
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Trump (I'll qualify this by saying I don't like the guy) is the elected president of a sovereign nation. Suleimani was the most prominent Iranian general practicing the darkest of the dark arts across the region, stoking the flames of war and sectarian conflict.

    Above all he was a military man, and military men engaging in such things must reconcile themselves with their fate if it catches up with them. I'm sure even western operatives who play with fire need to accept this in their hearts as well. That is the logic of war and Suleimani was well practiced in war.

    Oh piss off. The US and their allies are responsible for the deaths and displacements of millions of innocent people in the last few decades.

    The US stokes flames and sectarian conflict more than every other country on the planet combined.

    Anything Iran or this general did pales in comparison.


  • Options
    #3044
    mickdoocey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭mickdoocey


    Ironicname wrote: »
    ****ing hell. How dare you come on here and not take a side and be a prick to everyone who disagrees with you?

    **** off with your level headed comment and let the real men shout about how much we hate trump/iran

    thank you.
    I believe Irans leaders want peace, they want to grow there economy, sell their oil and have tourism and generally live the good life.
    I honestly think they want to open Iran up.
    a deal can be brokered that allows Iran to do that and even have nuclear power but no nuclear weapons. The EU and Russia could oversee the whole project jointly. Let the Chinese and americans pay for the project through the market system.
    It can be done and hopefully it will become the template for bringing peace to the middle east.


  • Options
    #3045
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    notobtuse wrote: »
    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.


    I think you fail to see what the real cost to benefit analysis here is.

    The US refusing to leave a country when asked too does not add to their plus side.
    Adil Abdul-Madhi is reportedly now seeking to make that non-binding vote legal btw.



    If he does do, you believe the US should still refuse to leave and remain as an occupying power against the legal wishes of a sovereign state ?


  • Options
    #3046
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Oh piss off. The US and their allies are responsible for the deaths and displacements of millions of innocent people in the last few decades.

    The US stokes flames and sectarian conflict more than every other country on the planet combined.

    Anything Iran or this general did pales in comparison.

    Sure thing champ. The middle East would all be peaches and rainbows if Uncle Sam just went back to the prairies and ice fishin' in Minnesota just like the good 'ol days.

    Naive in the extreme.


  • Options
    #3047
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    charlie14 wrote: »
    I think you fail to see what the real cost to benefit analysis here is.

    The US refusing to leave a country when asked too does not add to their plus side.
    Adil Abdul-Madhi is reportedly now seeking to make that non-binding vote legal btw.



    If he does do, you believe the US should still refuse to leave and remain as an occupying power against the legal wishes of a sovereign state ?

    If the US leaves they should leave only after they're paid for all the infrastructure they built there. You know... cost benefit and all.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3048
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    pearcider wrote: »
    The 1950s was a long time ago. All the politicians from that era are dead and moreover the west was engaged in a titanic struggle with an expansionist and dangerous Soviet Union. The ends justified the means and the west could not afford to have a socialist regime in such a strategic state.

    You are defending theocratic Iran today with absolutely no justification other than you hate America. The ironic thing is Ireland have perhaps benefitted more than any other nation in the world from the Pax America.

    Yes it was a long time ago. Can't have those pesky Iranians nationalising their oil wealth for the benefit of their people can we.
    Yurt! wrote: »
    Sure thing champ. The middle East would all be peaches and rainbows if Uncle Sam just went back to the prairies and ice fishin' in Minnesota just like the good 'ol days.

    Naive in the extreme.

    Yes you are. Why does Saudi Arabia not get put under the spotlight the same way? 9/11 was largely funded and orchestrated by the Saudis, most of the highjackers were Saudi. Let's invade Iraq and Afghanistan though. You really brought freedom and stability to the region. Let's not forget Libya while we're at it.


  • Options
    #3049
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    Lefties would say and do anything to undermine Trump.


    https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/1214881961564606464


  • Options
    #3050
    pablo128
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,219 ✭✭✭pablo128


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If the US leaves they should leave only after they're paid for all the infrastructure they built there. You know... cost benefit and all.

    Well if they're that bothered, take it with them.


  • Options
    #3051
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Yes it was a long time ago. Can't have those pesky Iranians nationalising their oil wealth for the benefit of their people can we.



    Yes you are.

    North america: were American freedoms are

    The middle east: were the US military thinks American freedoms are


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3052
    perrito caliente
    Closed Accounts Posts: 262 ✭✭perrito caliente


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Sure thing champ. The middle East would all be peaches and rainbows if Uncle Sam just went back to the prairies and ice fishin' in Minnesota just like the good 'ol days.

    Naive in the extreme.

    You are naive if you think the history books will see American foreign policy in the Middle East during the last hundred years as anything other than what it is: a
    litany of immoral and terroristic actions typically taken under false pretences in order steal resources, cripple economies, and assert authority with brute force and criminal negligence in places where it is very much unwelcome.


  • Options
    #3053
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Lefties would say and do anything to undermine Trump.


    https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/1214881961564606464

    Ah socialists. On the wrong side of history since forever.


  • Options
    #3054
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Well if they're that bothered, take it with them.
    Oil will do.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3055
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If the US leaves they should leave only after they're paid for all the infrastructure they built there. You know... cost benefit and all.


    Childish attempt to avoid a genuine question imho.



    Still you did make it clear you do not think of the US in Iraq as some benign force but rather an occupying one.


  • Options
    #3056
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    perrito caliente wrote: »
    You are naive if you think the history books will see American foreign policy in Middle East during the last hundred years as anything other than what it is: a
    litany of immoral and terroristic actions typically taken under false pretences in order steal resources, cripple economies, and assert authority with brute force and criminal negligence in places where it is very much unwelcome.
    It depends on who gets to write the history books.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3057
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Yes it was a long time ago. Can't have those pesky Iranians nationalising their oil wealth for the benefit of their people can we.



    Yes you are.

    Yeah, yeah, American boogeyman hungry for oil. Most people got over their Chomsky-lite view of the world when they got hair on their chin.

    You don't care about people executed for 'political crimes' or dissidents murdered in mainland Europe because you don't have to think about it. Iranians do. Before this all kicked off, a couple of weeks ago I happened to be speaking to an Iranian gent who has lived in Europe since the early 80s (not by choice I might add). I'd love for him to have a word with you so you can flesh out your simplistic view of the world.

    You can keep salivating over the the latest misdeeds of the Great Satan. It will keep all your mates in the student union entertained I'm sure.


  • Options
    #3058
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Childish attempt to avoid a genuine question imho.



    Still you did make it clear you do not think of the US in Iraq as some benign force but rather an occupying one.
    I is a very valid point and one Trump has stated also. Iraq has been more than happy to accept our security and money. So earn it or pay it back if you want us out.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3059
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭mulbot


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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.

    What, who can't win in my eyes? Of course I thought US was foolish and even more so today. Iran's response showed they would not be deterred even after the US threat of near annihilation and rightly so.


  • Options
    #3060
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,152 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Oil will do.


    Indeed



    The mask slips.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3061
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    perrito caliente wrote: »
    You are naive if you think the history books will see American foreign policy in the Middle East during the last hundred years as anything other than what it is: a
    litany of immoral and terroristic actions typically taken under false pretences in order steal resources, cripple economies, and assert authority with brute force and criminal negligence in places where it is very much unwelcome.

    Sometimes the mask slips..

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/politics/trump-syria-oil-fields.amp.html


Advertisement