US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Boggles

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What terror are they bringing?

TBF an unmanned drone in complete stealth taking out a convoy in the middle of the night is the definition of "terror".

jackboy

Limpy wrote: »

If Americans bring Terror to foreign lands there should be a heavy price.

So your saying the price is a terrorist attack on a hotel in Ireland. There is no excuse for your post.

Kermit.de.frog

Boggles wrote: »

TBF an unmanned drone in complete stealth taking out a convoy in the middle of the night is the definition of "terror".

Better than having to put boots on the ground though.

Fonny122

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Better than having to put boots on the ground though.

Shouldn't boots on the ground be somewhat fine too then, because at least it means they're not nuking them?

Limpy

jackboy wrote: »

So your saying the price is a terrorist attack on a hotel in Ireland. There is no excuse for your post.

Im speaking of easy ways countries can retaliate. People are getting on a horn about how big the US army is but it's quite easy for a country to respond. That's one way they can

KWAG2019

The Twitter threads around the legality of the action show how complex it is. If an international tribunal or tribunals find that it was an illegal act there are several problems. Imagine the US having to consider that its C in C is in international law a war criminal.

Now this isn’t a problem for Trump, Bannon, Miller et al: they deny the validity of international tribunals anyway. There is a background to the pardoning of Gallagher etc. And the dismissal of the murder of Kashoggi. But it hits the international order. And it destroys any claim of moral superiority. And it undermines coalitions. And it advances the new view of Putin that might is right and the weak must suffer what they must.

Iran knows it can’t win a military arm wrestle. It’s not going to do that. Or just that.

But it is a real problem for Europe.

Kermit.de.frog

Limpy wrote: »

Im speaking of easy ways countries can retaliate. People are getting on a horn about how big the US army is but it's quite easy for a country to respond. That's one way they can

Iran is surrounded on it's borders by 45 different US military bases of all asset classes.

Good luck with that. :cool:

Manic Moran

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Trump isn’t going to invade. He needs a PR war not a real one. I agree with most of what you say but what interests me now is how the Iranian military have thought this through. The US method is well known and is remarkably reliant on missiles be they air sea manned launch or unmanned. The stealth capabilities are well known. They have known this was coming. What have they got ready?

I presume that the Iranian military have a realistic goal: To prevent the occupation of the country and the continuance of the regime. It relies on the presumption that the Americans will not go 'all-out' in an invasion, and I think that's a pretty reasonable presumption.

What the military will be telling their civilian leaders, though, is "we can keep the Americans from taking over, but you remember when the Americans basically deleted our Navy in the 1980s and there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it? If you want to go down this path, you must be prepared to see this happen again and lose the Navy and probably most of the air force and air defense systems, regardless of what happens to the Americans in Iraq or elsewhere."

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Not if their operating sorties out of bases in the middle east. US aerial threat conditional on being able to leave the base and land. If Iran starts a massive strike against US bases in the region, you impact the US ability to strike forcefully. Unless of course they go nuclear and Iran has no defence. 

I think people have forgotten the US's power projection capability because it's not in the news. There's a reason the US is considered the world's only Hyperpower. We use neighboring countries for airfields and logistics support because we can and it's cheaper and easier, not because we have to. The US Air Force has one tanker aircraft for every three fighters. It can create harbours in a couple of days with purpose-built ships for handling its supply chain to offload transport ships in the interim (Seabasing). Things have advanced a little since the Mulberries of WW2. You don't see them because they're not glamorous, we're not using them, but we have them.

threeball

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Iran is surrounded on it's borders by 45 different US military bases of all asset classes.

Good luck with that. :cool:

They've just unleashed the IRA times a million. Let's see how they handle that. There will be no mass battles, public opinion is already against America so going in heavy and bombing the country of Iran won't fly. They've started another war they can't finish. No country on earth has ever started as many needless wars with the unintended consequences being far reaching. A large scale war in the middle East will flood Europe with refugees but that may be what the yanks want.

Fonny122

The US are sending thousands of troops to the middle East, just in case anyone was under the impression Trump is looking for anything other than a war.

cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/baghdad-airport-strike-live-intl-hnk/h_e91f3c68f7d8beba7983b7556454b8d4

Gatling

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We have Iran's "harsh" response.

"Legal measures"

https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1213178430507929605

Wonder if he was nothing more than a sacrificial lamb ,

Legal measures run to the UN with russia demanding action and a full investigation which they will block any investigation blaming something or another ,
Mean while Iran state media will show a handful of Iranians(military) burning American and Israeli flags screaming down to the infidels ,

Meanwhile ordinary young Iranians who have zero say in their own country will be still wondering what's all this revolution about

Fonny122

threeball wrote: »

They've just unleashed the IRA times a million. Let's see how they handle that. There will be no mass battles, public opinion is already against America so going in heavy and bombing the country of Iran won't fly. They've started another war they can't finish. No country on earth has ever started as many needless wars with the unintended consequences being far reaching. A large scale war in the middle East will flood Europe with refugees but that may be what the yanks want.

I do t know that it's directly what the Yanks want, but I can think of one country desperate to see the EU fall...

Gatling

Fonny122 wrote: »

The US are sending thousands of troops to the middle East,

After Iranian militias attacked the US embassy a few days ago do keep up ,

We all know your new here (not really)

greenpilot

Manic Moran wrote: »

I presume that the Iranian military have a realistic goal: To prevent the occupation of the country and the continuance of the regime. It relies on the presumption that the Americans will not go 'all-out' in an invasion, and I think that's a pretty reasonable presumption.

What the military will be telling their civilian leaders, though, is "we can keep the Americans from taking over, but you remember when the Americans basically deleted our Navy in the 1980s and there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it? If you want to go down this path, you must be prepared to see this happen again and lose the Navy and probably most of the air force and air defense systems, regardless of what happens to the Americans in Iraq or elsewhere."



I think people have forgotten the US's power projection capability because it's not in the news. There's a reason the US is considered the world's only Hyperpower. We use neighboring countries for airfields and logistics support because we can and it's cheaper and easier, not because we have to. The US Air Force has one tanker aircraft for every three fighters. It can create harbours in a couple of days with purpose-built ships for handling its supply chain to offload transport ships in the interim (Seabasing). Things have advanced a little since the Mulberries of WW2. You don't see them because they're not glamorous, we're not using them, but we have them.

That is indeed very true, but as a military power, Iran is not limited by its borders as I have already mentioned. Logistic, technological and even Air Dominance will not be enough to deal with a fight on many fronts at the same time. If Iran does strike back it will be at a time of their choosing and will be well coordinated, preplanned and designed to steer the conflict down a predetermined path.

Fonny122

Gatling wrote: »

Meanwhile ordinary young Iranians who have zero say in their own country will be getting radicalized by terrorists using this as a seriouy beneficial recruitment device

Edited for what will actually happen.

Limpy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Iran is surrounded on it's borders by 45 different US military bases of all asset classes.

Good luck with that. :cool:

The US couldn't win against a bunch of sheep herder's in Afghanistan. They lost about 3k soldier's the the Taliban are stronger then ever.

They will no douth be able to hurt Iran, but it will result in a huge loss of life.on both sides. So the question to armchair yanks is how many dead yankie soldiers is it worth to obliterate Iran?

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think people have forgotten the US's power projection capability because it's not in the news. There's a reason the US is considered the world's only Hyperpower.

The problem with being a "Hyperpower" you have far more targets that could be attacked.

Gatling

Fonny122 wrote: »

Edited for what will actually happen.

Not really no

Fonny122

Gatling wrote: »

After Iranian militias attacked the US embassy a few days ago do keep up ,

Leaving aside your pettiness, you would do well to take a break from flapping about helping radicalise even more Iranian teenagers, and take a moment to check the news. This was announced today.

nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1110081

WASHINGTON — The United States is sending approximately 3,000 soldiers to the Middle East after thousands of people stormed the compound of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, three U.S. defense officials and one U.S. military official confirmed to NBC News on Friday.

The news came hours after an American airstrike killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force and one of the country's most powerful figures, but U.S. defense officials said the deployments were not in response to the strike.

Fonny122

Gatling wrote: »

Not really no

Yeah, there was absolutely no uptick in young males in the middle East and of Muslim origin being radicalized in the years after Iraq was invaded. None whatsoever.

Nor in Libya, nor Afghanistan, nor any of the other US' middle eastern interjections of the last 15-20 years.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

The problem with being a "Hyperpower" you have far more target that could be attacked.

But they have the only true ability to hit any where day or night inside Iran ,

Iran could go with a proxy terrorist attack somewhere in the States but that would be met with massive retaliation there is no win for Iran anywhere in this ,

Unless they suddenly come to the realisation going up against a highly unstable American president who gives zero ****s about political norms is going to end in tears

notobtuse

Israel was about to assassinate Soleimani in 2015, but President Obama foiled the plan and reached out to Iran with news of Israel's strategy. It’s reported Soleimani orchestrated the invasion of the US Embassy. Also, some 500 US service members combat deaths by IED’s can be directly linked to Iran and Soleimani. The airstrike against on him and the militiamen was proportionate to his actions. If war does come, it will be the fault of Iran and the Obama administration for preventing Israel from carrying out their plans in 2015, not Trump.

Limpy

Fonny122 wrote: »

Yeah, there was absolutely no uptick in young males in the middle East and of Muslim origin being radicalized in the years after Iraq was invaded. None whatsoever.

Nor in Libya, nor Afghanistan, nor any of the other US' middle eastern interjections of the last 15-20 years.

All these attacks in Europe were a consequence of the west's support to rebel's in Syria. They morphed into ISIS(which gave the yanks a reason to stay in Syria).

Sean.3516

I honestly don’t know what the problem is with USA killing an evil human being who for years has been known to be coordinating all shiite/Iranian sponsored terror.

Besides how is this a disproportionate escalation exactly? Trump has actually treating Iran with kid gloves for the past while, certainly since they starting attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz a few months ago.

They pushed it too hard by organising what was by any measure an attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad and as a result one of their top guys got blown to smithereens.

Good for Trump I say.

Limpy

notobtuse wrote: »

Israel was about to assassinate Soleimani in 2015, but President Obama foiled the plan and reached out to Iran with news of Israel's strategy. It’s reported Soleimani orchestrated the invasion of the US Embassy. Also, some 500 US service members combat deaths by IED’s can be directly linked to Iran and Soleimani. The airstrike against on him and the militiamen was proportionate to his actions. If war does come, it will be the fault of Iran and the Obama administration for preventing Israel from carrying out their plans in 2015, not Trump.

Show your proof.

Limpy

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I honestly don’t know what the problem is with USA killing an evil human being who for years has been known to be coordinating all shiite/Iranian sponsored terror.

Besides how is this a disproportionate escalation exactly? Trump has actually treating Iran with kid gloves for the past while, certainly since they starting attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz a few months ago.

They pushed it too hard by organising what was by any measure an attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad and as a result one of their top guys got blown to smithereens.

Good for Trump I say.

The consensus is that if you be judge and jury without the need for the UN then other countries can follow suit. Russian for instance could of said a Ukrainian general was killing innocent people and did the same thing.

Gatling

Limpy wrote: »

Russian for instance could of said a Ukrainian general was killing innocent people and did the same thing.

They already did

Limpy

Gatling wrote: »

They already did

What did the yanks say fair enough?

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

But they have the only true ability to hit any where day or night inside Iran ,

Iran could go with a proxy terrorist attack somewhere in the States but that would be met with massive retaliation there is no win for Iran anywhere in this ,

Unless they suddenly come to the realisation going up against a highly unstable American president who gives zero ****s about political norms is going to end in tears

It's not 1945 anymore. "and to the victor goes the spoils".

War just brings "tears" all round.

There are no winners.

Never mind the battle itself.

On average 20 american veterans commit suicide every day.

Simply by and large because inadequate little men get the horn from warmongering or some very rich old men want to get even richer.

Bunch of pricks the lot of them.

Clinton also launched missiles against Iran just before an impeachment.

But sure........

Fonny122

Limpy wrote: »

All these attacks in Europe were a consequence of the west's support to rebel's in Syria. They morphed into ISIS(which gave the yanks a reason to stay in Syria).

Many of these attacks were happening long before the Syrian conflict, though.