US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

charlie14

LillySV wrote: »

Big difference between Expressing an opinion and what happened on this thread, insulting Americans and wishing bad things to their army ...

Can I take it from your obvious moral outrage that you have said the same to those posters here who expressed the same towards the Iranians and their army ?

osarusan

charlie14 wrote: »

Can I take it from your obvious moral outrage that you have said the same to those posters here who expressed the same towards the Iranians and their army ?

LillySV has no problem describing Iran like this:

LillySV wrote: »

hence why Iran is still in the dark age with nut jobs like him controlling the place

This is petty point-scoring dressed up as some kind of moral argument, nothing more.

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

I've no problem saying that if we are to have one global superpower, it's better for that to be the USA than its rivals, but it's absurd to portray them as some kind of virtuous or altruistic actor.

USA has no absolutely problem installing and/or propping up despots as long as it suits wider strategy, and they have been at that for decades. They might waffle on about human right and democracy when it suits, but they will be abandoned when it doesn't suit.

And human rights and democracy only matter as long as there are strategic goals. In the hypothetical scenario that vast amounts of a rare and valuable resource was discovered deep under North Korean soil, we'd suddenly start hearing a lot about human rights and democracy there, and a need, why, even a moral obligation, for intervention.

All of this is criticism that could be levelled at a number of other major powers too, and international bodies, but when you position yourself as the world police, you are the one that will get the most criticism.

I remember in 2003 when Iran suffered a devastating earthquake and the US sent numerous personnel and medical supplies to help out, and hundreds of thousands of pounds of relief supplies - making the US one of, if not the largest international donor. All the while they were chanting ‘Death to America’ and attacking us through their proxies. How did that suit our interests?

Let's put it this way: If Iran and Iraq were located in sub Saharan Africa i.e. not a bottle neck for the world's oil supply would the US be bothered?

Of course not

That's of course true, but why should Islamic fascists be allowed to threaten the West with that oil and b) allowed to support fascistic proxies in the region, thereby posing a direct threat to the West?

They shouldn't.

That's why some degree of involvement is both inevitable and desirable.

Cheerful Spring2

charlie14 wrote: »

Statistically it may seem strange, but like being hit by lightning, plane crashes have little to do with statistics

Well for those individual that said that, America, from what I can see are saying that their military and intelligence services were monitoring and they saw no signs of the heat signature you would see from a missile.
Perhaps those individuals believe it was a US missile, but why and for what purpose only they can say.

True, but I'm receptive to all circumstances. Flight that went down over Ukraine blamed on Russia, and now this is a Ukrainian registered plane crashing. All happening on same night Iran launched missiles. It sometimes takes place mistakes happen. Did the pilot pass over a military site by mistake? They're a lot of unknowns here. There is a limit to possibilities- a pilot error, a problem inside the plane, engine failure, or got shot down by missile or AA gun flak?

s7ryf3925pivug

notobtuse wrote: »

I remember in 2003 when Iran suffered a devastating earthquake and the US sent numerous personnel and medical supplies to help out, and hundreds of thousands of pounds of relief supplies - making the US one of, if not the largest international donor. All the while they were chanting ‘Death to America’ and attacking us through their proxies. How did that suit our interests?

It suited American interests because in response Iran agreed to allow closer monitoring of their nuclear interests, became less hostile and groundwork was established for future diplomacy.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Well it is odd, the plane would crash on the night Iran fired missiles into Iraq. We have to wait and see what the outcome is. Some individuals on here said it was missile and there no doubt about that, yet experts disagree and they talk about plane engine issue. It's a technical issue, pilot error, or something hit the plane during its flight.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

True, but I'm receptive to all circumstances. Flight that went down over Ukraine blamed on Russia, and now this is a Ukrainian registered plane crashing. All happening on same night Iran launched missiles. It sometimes takes place mistakes happen. Did the pilot pass over a military site by mistake? They're a lot of unknowns here. There is a limit to possibilities- a pilot error, a problem inside the plane, engine failure, or got shot down by missile or AA gun flak?

how can you claim to be receptive to all circumstances when you say there is no doubt that it was a missile?

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how can you claim to be receptive to all circumstances when you say there is no doubt that it was a missile?

I never said it was a missile, where did i say that?

charlie14

notobtuse wrote: »

I remember in 2003 when Iran suffered a devastating earthquake and the US sent numerous personnel and medical supplies to help out, and hundreds of thousands of pounds of relief supplies - making the US one of, if not the largest international donor. All the while they were chanting ‘Death to America’ and attacking us through their proxies. How did that suit our interests?

Back then after the hostage situation, the tensions between the two appears to have eased somewhat when you consider that two American tourists visiting the ancient cultural city of Bam were killed in that earthquake

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never said it was a missile, where did i say that?

here.

Some individuals on here said it was missile and there no doubt about that, yet experts disagree and they talk about plane engine issue.

charlie14

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

True, but I'm receptive to all circumstances. Flight that went down over Ukraine blamed on Russia, and now this is a Ukrainian registered plane crashing. All happening on same night Iran launched missiles. It sometimes takes place mistakes happen. Did the pilot pass over a military site by mistake? They're a lot of unknowns here. There is a limit to possibilities- a pilot error, a problem inside the plane, engine failure, or got shot down by missile or AA gun flak?

Well if the US is to be believed it was not a missile.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

here.

I never claimed that keep up with the thread. This was the opinion of different users. I said i was open to all possibilities I listed them.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never claimed that keep up with the thread. This was the opinion of different users. I said i was open to all possibilities I listed them.

and you said there was no doubt abou it. "it" being that it was a missile. Either that or the post i quoted was written in mangled english.

Cheerful Spring2

charlie14 wrote: »

Well if the US is to be believed it was not a missile.

True. One user is saying now i claimed it was missile that knocked down the plane 100 percent, i make no claim like that.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

True. One user is saying now i claimed it was missile that knocked down the plane 100 percent, i make no claim like that.

if that is the case then explain what your post meant because that is how it reads.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

That's of course true, but why should Islamic fascists be allowed to threaten the West with that oil and b) allowed to support fascistic proxies in the region, thereby posing a direct threat to the West?

They shouldn't.

That's why some degree of involvement is both inevitable and desirable.

Do you happen to recall who actually did specifically threaten the West over oil.?

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you said there was no doubt abou it. "it" being that it was a missile. Either that or the post i quoted was written in mangled english.

Or maybe you have comprehension problems? Find a quote Where I said a missile knocked down the plane 100 per cent.

pablo128

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if that is the case then explain what your post meant because that is how it reads.

He's saying there's no doubt some posters were saying it was shot down by a missile.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if that is the case then explain what your post meant because that is how it reads.

Some users yesterday said there is no doubt Iran shot the plane down. They not interested in waiting for the full details of the investigation!

ohnonotgmail

pablo128 wrote: »

He's saying there's no doubt some posters were saying it was shot down by a missile.

so mangled english then. don't no why they couldn't have just said that themselves.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you said there was no doubt abou it. "it" being that it was a missile. Either that or the post i quoted was written in mangled english.

This is the sentence you did not understand.
Some individuals on here said it was missile and there no doubt about that, yet experts disagree and they talk about plane engine issue.

J Mysterio

Survey of US public. Where is Iran?
https://twitter.com/JulienHoez/status/1214934632011055106

ohnonotgmail

J Mysterio wrote: »

Survey of US public. Where is Iran?
https://twitter.com/JulienHoez/status/1214934632011055106

it is the ones who thought it was in wexford that you have to worry about.

Manic Moran

partyguinness wrote: »

No Hillbillies in the airforce. Highly selective criteria.


The standard in the infantry will not be so high- usually drawn from poor areas with high employment and zero prospects. The army is a way out. In fact the army actively recruit in poor areas- it's the same in England and probably all over the world.

And there's another stereotype which is false.

Infantry are normally comprised of the better segments of society. Those seeking adventure, a challenge, or just factors like patriotism or family legacy. The folks who join the Army to get out of a bad situation normally also choose a career field which gives them more marketable skills such as vehicle or aircraft mechanic, medic, logistics, etc.

A related problem is racial demographics. The folks who choose infantry (or armor) are disproportionately white (You are almost twice as likely to be a combat arms soldier if you're white than any other race). This is related to lower segments of society bring disproportionately minority and choosing other skills, but there are other factors as well. As advancement to the highest ranks generally requires combat service, the end result is that the senior military leadership is also disproportionately white, and issue which the military is trying (not necessarily successfully) to deal with. It is for this reason (women in high ranks) that combat arms were recently opened to females.

Finally, the military gets most of its recruits from the middle class. The highest and lowest quintiles of the US population by neighborhood affluence are the least represented in the military. The highest percentage of recruits come from right in the middle, the quintile with a household income of $51k-64k/year.

https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2017/summary/summary.pdf may make interesting reading for you.

Or feel free to continue your stereotyping.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is the sentence you did not understand.
Some individuals on here said it was missile and there no doubt about that, yet experts disagree and they talk about plane engine issue.

i'm aware what sentence it is. i quoted it back to you twice.

MadYaker

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I never claimed that keep up with the thread. This was the opinion of different users. I said i was open to all possibilities I listed them.

No, he said other users made the claim, he didn't make the claim himself. Read the posts.

Cheerful Spring2

https://twitter.com/FarsNews_Agency/status/1215247902995599362

Senior Iran military commander: The missile attack on US targets was the start of an operation that’ll continue across the region.

We have to wait and see if this a bluff?

partyguinness

Manic Moran wrote: »

Finally, the military gets most of its recruits from the middle class. The highest and lowest quintiles of the US population by neighborhood affluence are the least represented in the military. The highest percentage of recruits come from right in the middle, the quintile with a household income of $51k-64k/year.

https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2017/summary/summary.pdf may make interesting reading for you.

Or feel free to continue your stereotyping.

Interesting.


But as a point of order. Just be aware that the definition of Middle Class in the US is not the same as Middle Class over here- it would be generally seen as the equivalent of the (ahem) Working Class in this part of the world and in particular the UK where I am now based. I suppose that is 'poor' to me...;)

GooglePlus

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FarsNews_Agency/status/1215247902995599362

Senior Iran military commander: The missile attack on US targets was the start of an operation that’ll continue across the region.

We have to wait and see if this a bluff?

Ah he's no Soleimani. Lacks the Charisma.

I'd liken it to Pat Kenny replacing Gay.

Cheerful Spring2

GooglePlus wrote: »

Ah he's no Soleimani. Lacks the Charisma.

I'd liken it to Pat Kenny replacing Gay.

More info here https://news.sky.com/story/senior-iranian-commander-vows-to-take-harsher-revenge-soon-after-missile-attacks-11904293

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards aerospace force, added that Tehran's missile strikes on bases in Iraq were intended to damage the US' military machine and not kill troops.

The commander added that driving American troops out of the Middle East is the "appropriate revenge" for the US killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani.

His words came after another senior Iranian commander said Tehran will take "harsher revenge soon" after missile attacks on US targets in Iraq.