US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

J Mysterio

igCorcaigh wrote: »

And this all feeds in to the story of people around the world questioning their leaders priorities. It's happening everywhere, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, even the west.

This is the background of what is happening on the ground, and it can't be ignored.

This is clear and obvious.

But, as mentioned above, Iran came to an accord with the Western powers only for the US to unilaterally pull out, apply sanctions and now murder one of their top men.

Most Western powers (laterally the US in particular) have been quite duplicitous and self serving. In that context, it only stands to reason that one must prepare to defend oneself.

riclad

I Think the us airstikes in the last week were prompted by iran trying to transport missiles to various extremist groups in iraq.
These missiles could be used to attack israel or other countrys .
There have been protests in iraq against corruption in government and iran seeking more power or influence over the iraqi government .
Why is iran is sending hi tech weapons to various extremist groups in other countrys , what is the point in this ?
The iranian economy is already suffering from american sanctions .
iran seems to be using proxys in other countrys to conduct terrorist attacks, eg the drone attack on saudia arabia oil terminal,s .

Das Reich

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I’m not really though. The ‘yanks’ were able to dismantle the Iraqi Armed Forces in 1990 as they had already been diminished, in terms of manpower and equipment, as a result of the Iran-Iraq War which ended just two years beforehand.

500,000 soldiers died during that war.

Iran hasn’t been fighting any such war in the last two years.

After the shame in Vietnam they changed the strategy in Iraq. They went not alone and used resources of many small countries from EU and the likes of Canada, Australia etc...

Gatling

Das Reich wrote: »

After the shame in Vietnam they changed the strategy in Iraq. They went not alone and used resources of many small countries from EU and the likes of Canada, Australia etc...

But supplied the bulk of all the forces and materials ,

What's next look at what America did in Afghanistan ....

Gatling

riclad wrote: »

I Think the us airstikes in the last week were prompted by iran trying to transport missiles to various extremist groups in iraq.
These missiles could be used to attack israel or other countrys .
There have been protests in iraq against corruption in government and iran seeking more power or influence over the iraqi government .
Why is iran is sending hi tech weapons to various extremist groups in other countrys , what is the point in this ?
The iranian economy is already suffering from american sanctions .
iran seems to be using proxys in other countrys to conduct terrorist attacks, eg the drone attack on saudia arabia oil terminal,s .

This is the big issue everyone Ranting about America this and America that ,
Iran are far from an innocent party in all of this ,it's well acknowledged iran was heavily involved in the post 2nd gulf war insurgency from men to expertise attacking coalition and Iraqis to gain a foothold in the state ,in parts of Iraq close to the Iranian border buildings are plastered with images of various Iran's supreme leaders both religious and military as if to say this is now Iran ,
Even the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr is fully funded and supported by Iran .
As long as Iran is involved in Iraq and Syria and Yemen conflicts will only increase and spread ,as long as it doesn't effect Iran directly at home

Fonny122

The US really dodged a bullet in not electing that warming er Hillary Clinton. If they had her in government we would be seeing all kinds of crazy - increased drone strikes in the middle East, agitation with China at every opportunity (only to repeatedly get bent over a table by them), she would get in a childish dick swinging competition with Kim Jong Un (only make a fool of her and somehow come off as the less stable of the two half the time) and would be bombing the generals of other powerful nations like Iran to try and start wars, after her efforts of attacking Japanese tankers and blaming it on others had failed.

We can be grateful that we avoided all that mess.

Beasty

Nitty Gritty wrote: »

The thread is actually readable now I've put vibes on block, much better.

Threadbanned

StupidLikeAFox

Fonny122 wrote: »

The US really dodged a bullet in not electing that warming er Hillary Clinton. If they had her in government we would be seeing all kinds of crazy - increased drone strikes in the middle East, agitation with China at every opportunity (only to repeatedly get bent over a table by them), she would get in a childish dick swinging competition with Kim Jong Un (only make a fool of her and somehow come off as the less stable of the two half the time) and would be bombing the generals of other powerful nations like Iran to try and start wars, after her efforts of attacking Japanese tankers and blaming it on others had failed.

We can be grateful that we avoided all that mess.

Its extremely strange that your first ever post is describing some fantasy history about Hilary Clinton that never happened

notobtuse

Soleimani was one of the most lethal enemies of the US. He perpetrated evil in the region, and had the blood on his hands of hundreds of Americans and many more from other countries. And the taking out of Someimani reportedly stopped another imminent attack of his.

So, did Trump destabilize the region in one strategic strike or did he give Iran a firm warning to stop their low-level war that they have participated in for four decades, and have recently ramped up?

Personally I think there is risk in the short term. But the US certainly didn’t create one. The attack might give Iran the incentive to escalate their war going forward, but it would be something they can’t win. So the Mullahs might direct some type of response but stop short of a war as it could backfire on them and drive them out of power in Iran. They certainly now know they aren’t dealing a feckless US commander-in-chief who would send them pallets of cash in hopes they’ll play nice, and ignore their continued destabilization of the region.

Cheerful Spring2

US searching for many ways to end the Iranian nuclear program and I speculate they hoping Iran reacts so they start this regime ending war they have gearing up for over two decades.  If Iran killed Mike Pence or Pompeo, would you suppose the US would just sit back and do nothing? US has opened the door now for serious war in the region and Iran will react soon. 

J Mysterio

As was mentioned previously...

https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1212927211017265153

Since this time - where Iran was working with the US - the US has left an agreement reached with Iran in good faith, imposed massive sanctions and now assassinated him.

Limpy

notobtuse wrote: »

Soleimani was one of the most lethal enemies of the US. He perpetrated evil in the region, and had the blood on his hands of hundreds of Americans and many more from other countries. And the taking out of Someimani reportedly stopped another imminent attack of his.

So, did Trump destabilize the region in one strategic strike or did he give Iran a firm warning to stop their low-level war that they have participated in for four decades, and have recently ramped up?

Personally I think there is risk in the short term. But the US certainly didn’t create one. The attack might give Iran the incentive to escalate their war going forward, but it would be something they can’t win. So the Mullahs might direct some type of response but stop short of a war as it could backfire on them and drive them out of power in Iran. They certainly now know they aren’t dealing a feckless US commander-in-chief who would send them pallets of cash in hopes they’ll play nice, and ignore their continued destabilization of the region.

I hope you or your kid's will be on the front line.

J Mysterio

notobtuse wrote: »

Soleimani was one of the most lethal enemies of the US. He perpetrated evil in the region, and had the blood on his hands of hundreds of Americans and many more from other countries. And the taking out of Someimani reportedly stopped another imminent attack of his.

Best thing is the US seemingly doesn't even have to fabricate evidence to substantiate these type of claims anymore. Just go ahead and strike!

Gatling

J Mysterio wrote: »

Since this time - where Iran was working with the US - the US has left an agreement reached with Iran in good faith, imposed massive sanctions and now assassinated him.

Looks like a highly staged publicity stunt ,

Oh look here is the Iranian hero quick run before the Israeli strike .

Play with fire and expect to be burned exactly what just happened

Cheerful Spring2

Comparing Iraq to Iran is funny. Iran possesses the largest ballistic missile defence in the middle east that comprises hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles with GPS and aerial navigation systems. Every base in the middle east that house US troops and aircraft is a target now. US will receive a heavy blow if Iran goes all in. 

Gatling

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Comparing Iraq to Iran is funny. Iran possesses the largest ballistic missile defence in the middle east that comprises hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles with GPS and aerial navigation systems. Every base in the middle east that house US troops and aircraft is a target now. US will receive a heavy blow if Iran goes all in. 

And yet America has the ability and capabilities to strike any where in the world 24/7 ,

No point telling us what iran has supposedly hidden in underground apocalypse bunkets

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

For Iran it is a matter of life and death. The Israelis hate them, the Saudis hate them and the yanks have wanted regime change for some time. The US has military bases built up in a ring around the country. They see it as vital to influence their neighbours and contacts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc. and that this may benefit them in a war scenario.

I understand their military strategy is primarily defence orientated. What benefits them in this regard is the aforementioned topography of the country and the hormuz strait.

Edit
Yer man was targeted as his force was precisely about influencing and arming foreign groups

Cheerful Spring2

Gatling wrote: »

And yet America has the ability and capabilities to strike any where in the world 24/7 ,

No point telling us what iran has supposedly hidden in underground apocalypse bunkets

Mean nothing if you can't get off from air carrier ships and fly from bases. Saddam had no capacity to strike outside his border. Iran fires missiles at US bases a lot of the aircraft are getting taken out. You forget Iran fired cruise missiles at Saudi Arabia oil facilities and US patriot missile system failed to identify them. 

Limpy

Gatling wrote: »

And yet America has the ability and capabilities to strike any where in the world 24/7 ,

No point telling us what iran has supposedly hidden in underground apocalypse bunkets

And yet they are still stuck in the quaqmire that is Afghanistan.

notobtuse

Limpy wrote: »

I hope you or your kid's will be on the front line.

I'm too old, but one kid and one grandkid will be if necessary.

Fonny122

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Its extremely strange that your first ever post is describing some fantasy history about Hilary Clinton that never happened

How do you mean it never happened? She was a war monger and Trump was non interventionist. He and his supporters told us so. Good thing he's not making asses of his followers in all of this, and is avoiding things that would increase tensions in the middle East. Because we all know if this were Clinton, she would have bombed Suleimani in order to provoke a war.

(I might be being sarcastic)

GooglePlus

Fonny122 wrote: »

How do you mean it never happened? She was a war monger and Trump was non interventionist. He and his supporters told us so. Good thing he's not making asses of his followers in all of this, and is avoiding things that would increase tensions in the middle East. Because we all know if this were Clinton, she would have bombed Suleimani in order to provoke a war.

(I might be being sarcastic)

A presidential candidate lying in order to win the office??

Fonny122

GooglePlus wrote: »

A preside oh shntial candidate lying in order to win the office??

I must have missed the memo, are wars a "they're all the same" topic now? Funny how 24 hours can change things so utterly, because I could swear I've been hearing for years about how one definite benefit of Trump was ending wars and less escalation in the middle east.

But hey, they're all the same and all politicians lie right?

ArchXStanton

This was a wreckless move by the US, I noticed the usual phone calls made to its poodles the UK, France, Germany for all of them to parrot the same thing... Blah blah he deserved to go, but blah blah let's de-escalate things, are these clowns serious?

threeball

notobtuse wrote: »

Soleimani was one of the most lethal enemies of the US. He perpetrated evil in the region, and had the blood on his hands of hundreds of Americans and many more from other countries. And the taking out of Someimani reportedly stopped another imminent attack of his.

So, did Trump destabilize the region in one strategic strike or did he give Iran a firm warning to stop their low-level war that they have participated in for four decades, and have recently ramped up?

Personally I think there is risk in the short term. But the US certainly didn’t create one. The attack might give Iran the incentive to escalate their war going forward, but it would be something they can’t win. So the Mullahs might direct some type of response but stop short of a war as it could backfire on them and drive them out of power in Iran. They certainly now know they aren’t dealing a feckless US commander-in-chief who would send them pallets of cash in hopes they’ll play nice, and ignore their continued destabilization of the region.

That's a very American view of things anyway. He was no saint but no worse than his American counterparts.

After 9/11 the Iranians reached out to the US with an offer of help in order to track down Al Queda operatives and those responsible for arranging the attacks. The very next day Bush announced his war on terror and denounced Iran as part of the axis of evil and quashed any chance of reducing tensions. Solemani was behind the offer.

When the Yassidis were being slaughtered on a hill side in northern Iraq by Isis and the Americans turned their back. Solemani arrived in Kurdistan asked what was required. The next day 3 planes of the weapons required landed and the advance of Isis was halted and the wholesale slaughter of the previous months was brought to an end with the seeds of the destruction of Isis sown.

Yes he did some bad sh1t but he's no worse than the scum who run the American military

Lord Fairlord

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

Regardless of resource allocation in times of increasing scarcity, few beyond the standard war hawks could imagine this bodes well for the US and its allies, or Iran and its allies. It's just a downward spiral for both interests.

I'd argue that Israel benefits from turmoil in countries that it sees as enemies.

threeball

The American troops who will inevitably lose their lives because of this action can thank uncle Donald for his electioneering

Billy Mays

notobtuse wrote: »

Soleimani was one of the most lethal enemies of the US. He perpetrated evil in the region, and had the blood on his hands of hundreds of Americans and many more from other countries. And the taking out of Someimani reportedly stopped another imminent attack of his.

So, did Trump destabilize the region in one strategic strike or did he give Iran a firm warning to stop their low-level war that they have participated in for four decades, and have recently ramped up?

Personally I think there is risk in the short term. But the US certainly didn’t create one. The attack might give Iran the incentive to escalate their war going forward, but it would be something they can’t win. So the Mullahs might direct some type of response but stop short of a war as it could backfire on them and drive them out of power in Iran. They certainly now know they aren’t dealing a feckless US commander-in-chief who would send them pallets of cash in hopes they’ll play nice, and ignore their continued destabilization of the region.

According to who?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mean nothing if you can't get off from air carrier ships and fly from bases. Saddam had no capacity to strike outside his border. Iran fires missiles at US bases a lot of the aircraft are getting taken out. 

And what stopping them launching from carriers and bases exactly ,

notobtuse

Billy Mays wrote: »

According to who?

US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. I watched an interview of his this morning. He understandably couldn't go into details about it.