US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

threeball

Fonny122 wrote: »

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...

Well they already dumped the fallout of Syria and Isis on Europe's door last time without a second thought even though they were problems created by America and their war mongering.

Sean.3516

Limpy wrote: »

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.

The UN is a sham organisation. The false premise upon which it is based is that there exists a so called “family of nations” who’ll get along with each other and maintain peace if only they’re given the right forum in which to express their issues.

The reality is unfortunately much more depressing. Nations have different competing interests and philosophies for how the world order should be structured. Countries like Iran will engage cynically and in bad faith with the rest of the world by claiming to be moderating while sending men like the one who was killed to lead terror organisations and create chaos and destruction around the region.

At the end of the day what will prevent war with Iran is deterrence not appeasement. Guess who wants war with Iran least of all? Iran. They know they haven’t a hope of winning an open war so they fight through proxies. This guy was chief organiser of those proxy forces.

Iran can join the “family of nations” anytime it pleases. The idea that they’ll only though it if we bribe them with trade deals so that they can expand their malevolent influence is so naive and stupid. I know as Europeans we’re not supposed to care about that because we trade with Iran and the US doesn’t.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The UN is a sham organisation. The false premise upon which it is based is that there exists a so called “family of nations” who’ll get along with each other and maintain peace if only they’re given the right forum in which to express their issues.

The reality is unfortunately much more depressing. Nations have different competing interests and philosophies for how the world order should be structured. Countries like Iran will engage cynically and in bad faith with the rest of the world by claiming to be moderating while sending men like the one who was killed to lead terror organisations and create chaos and destruction around the region.

At the end of the day what will prevent war with Iran is deterrence not appeasement. Guess who wants war with Iran least of all? Iran. They know they haven’t a hope of winning an open war so they fight through proxies. This guy was chief organiser of those proxy forces.

Iran can join the “family of nations” anytime it pleases. The idea that they’ll only though it if we bribe them with trade deals so that they can expand their malevolent influence is so naive and stupid. I know as Europeans we’re not supposed to care about that because we trade with Iran and the US doesn’t.

Sounds like you're confusing Saudi with Iran.

threeball

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.

So going by your logic all American military leaders including Trump are fair game as they have being pursuing a terrorist agenda throughout the globe and deserve to be assassinated. They are also scum who walk out on their supposed allies and throw them to the wolves as they did with the Kurds.

Limpy

Fonny122 wrote: »

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

After the yanks invaded Iraq the first time then.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

Well they already dumped the fallout of Syria and Isis on Europe's door last time without a second thought even though they were problems created by America and their war mongering.

Ironically it was the US backing away from the Middle East under Obama that contributed to the problems you mention.

ISIS gained power in Iraq and Syria because of Obama pulled out prematurely. The US went in in 2003 destroyed the Iraqi military, toppled the govt, spent the next 6 years bogged down fighting insurgents, when they finally started to get things under control, Obama pulled US troops out before Iraq was capable of standing on it’s own two feet leaving a power vacuum which led the rise of ISIS within the next few years.

As with Syrian refugees in Europe, perhaps the problem could have been ameliorated by Obama enforcing his own red line when it came to chemical weapons. Perhaps he should have supported the rebels and forced the conflict to conclusion before the country was completely destroyed and the refugee crisis may not have been so bad. Because he didn’t intervene on behalf of the rebels, Russia intervened on behalf of the Syrian govt. which obviously didn’t help.

the_syco

3000 troops getting sent over.

jmreire

greenpilot wrote: »

This is the biggest myth in the ME. I've lived in both Iran and Syria ( old man in Armed Forces) and 90% of the people are extremely patriotic and Nationalistic. Think Nationalists in NI X 100. They tolerate their regimes because the snakes (think dictatorships) keep the main tribes apart and, by extension, maintains peace. Look what happened when Saddam and our Lybian friend were removed.
Iranians are extremely proud, intelligent and very well educated. Also one of most confusing countries I've ever been to!

Yes, but at the moment, there is ( and has been in the past ) an upwelling of resentment ( if not downright rebellion ) in most of the city's in Iran. Massive protests were triggered when the Ayatollah's Govt ordered an increase in fuel price's,supposedly to help the poor. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. In tandem with this, there has been mass protests in Lebanon and Iraq against Iranian influence, and growing power in the region. In Iran at the moment, protesters are being killed and injured by their own military ( QUD'S? ) Iranian's were and are very angry that the large influx of cash following the lifting of sanction's, did not filter into the general population...it was used to fund Iran's military and political interventions in the region. And Iranian's are well aware of this...when you see posters of Khamenei being trampled on and burned, and crowd's chanting for regime change, that's the feeling in Iran at the moment by the general population. So how will the death of Soleimani affect them ???. Personally, I don't know, and only time will tell how all this will evolve, but I'm sure that a lot of Iranian's will see it as hopefully, the beginning of the end of the regime.

PS:- Iranians are extremely proud, intelligent and very well educated. That's the way I found them too, and like wise, the Syrian's. Their history goes back thousand's of years, and they are an honourable people, who have had the misfortune to be ruled by religious thug's.

rapul

threeball wrote: »

So going by your logic all American military leaders including Trump are fair game as they have being pursuing a terrorist agenda throughout the globe and deserve to be assassinated. They are also scum who walk out on their supposed allies and throw them to the wolves as they did with the Kurds.

Bang on.

jackboy

the_syco wrote: »

3000 troops getting sent over.

3000 troops is actually a very small amount. Enough to beef up security around embassies and other sites as someone mentioned.

X111111111111

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.

Obama is gone thankfully and the Americans now have a President worthy of the name.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

So going by your logic all American military leaders including Trump are fair game as they have being pursuing a terrorist agenda throughout the globe and deserve to be assassinated. They are also scum who walk out on their supposed allies and throw them to the wolves as they did with the Kurds.

Explain to me how the US has been pursuing a terrorist agenda, preferably without some clichè about how “it’s all about oil.” This moral equivalence bs is tiresome.

With regard to the Kurds, I completely agree it was wrong. But I wonder why you do given you’re post? Would continuing to support the Kurds not be a continuance of America’s malignant interference in the Middle East which you’re obviously against?

Or maybe you’ll just criticise the US no matter what they do.

Snow Garden

jmreire wrote: »

Yes, but at the moment, there is ( and has been in the past ) an upwelling of resentment ( if not downright rebellion ) in most of the city's in Iran. Massive protests were triggered when the Ayatollah's Govt ordered an increase in fuel price's,supposedly to help the poor. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. In tandem with this, there has been mass protests in Lebanon and Iraq against Iranian influence, and growing power in the region. In Iran at the moment, protesters are being killed and injured by their own military ( QUD'S? ) Iranian's were and are very angry that the large influx of cash following the lifting of sanction's, did not filter into the general population...it was used to fund Iran's military and political interventions in the region. And Iranian's are well aware of this...when you see posters of Khamenei being trampled on and burned, and crowd's chanting for regime change, that's the feeling in Iran at the moment by the general population. So how will the death of Soleimani affect them ???. Personally, I don't know, and only time will tell how all this will evolve, but I'm sure that a lot of Iranian's will see it as hopefully, the beginning of the end of the regime.

PS:- Iranians are extremely proud, intelligent and very well educated. That's the way I found them too, and like wise, the Syrian's. Their history goes back thousand's of years, and they are an honourable people, who have had the misfortune to be ruled by religious thug's.

Great post.

Limpy

Colin Powell's speech which sleep walked thousands of Yankee soldiers to their deaths in Iraq.

They lied before. They lie now.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

Limpy

jmreire wrote: »

Yes, but at the moment, there is ( and has been in the past ) an upwelling of resentment ( if not downright rebellion ) in most of the city's in Iran. Massive protests were triggered when the Ayatollah's Govt ordered an increase in fuel price's,supposedly to help the poor. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. In tandem with this, there has been mass protests in Lebanon and Iraq against Iranian influence, and growing power in the region. In Iran at the moment, protesters are being killed and injured by their own military ( QUD'S? ) Iranian's were and are very angry that the large influx of cash following the lifting of sanction's, did not filter into the general population...it was used to fund Iran's military and political interventions in the region. And Iranian's are well aware of this...when you see posters of Khamenei being trampled on and burned, and crowd's chanting for regime change, that's the feeling in Iran at the moment by the general population. So how will the death of Soleimani affect them ???. Personally, I don't know, and only time will tell how all this will evolve, but I'm sure that a lot of Iranian's will see it as hopefully, the beginning of the end of the regime.

PS:- Iranians are extremely proud, intelligent and very well educated. That's the way I found them too, and like wise, the Syrian's. Their history goes back thousand's of years, and they are an honourable people, who have had the misfortune to be ruled by religious thug's.

The Shia in Saudi Arabia are being treated the same. What do you have to say about them.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Ironically it was the US backing away from the Middle East under Obama that contributed to the problems you mention.

ISIS gained power in Iraq and Syria because of Obama pulled out prematurely. The US went in in 2003 destroyed the Iraqi military, toppled the govt, spent the next 6 years bogged down fighting insurgents, when they finally started to get things under control, Obama pulled US troops out before Iraq was capable of standing on it’s own two feet leaving a power vacuum which led the rise of ISIS within the next few years.

As with Syrian refugees in Europe, perhaps the problem could have been ameliorated by Obama enforcing his own red line when it came to chemical weapons. Perhaps he should have supported the rebels and forced the conflict to conclusion before the country was completely destroyed and the refugee crisis may not have been so bad. Because he didn’t intervene on behalf of the rebels, Russia intervened on behalf of the Syrian govt. which obviously didn’t help.

This is not an Obama/Trump thing. This is American policy. Go in without justification, create an almighty mess and leave, leaving everyone else to deal with the fallout whilst they bolster border security to ride out the storm. They've been doing it since Vietnam.

And by the way, Obama didn't create Isis. It was the internment camps set up by Bush which were the genesis of Isis.

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

Sounds like you're confusing Saudi with Iran.

No, I don’t think so. The approach by the UN and the EU was to open Iran up to the world to encourage them to moderate. Appeasement for want of a better word. It failed. They did not stop sponsoring terror.

By the way, I’m no fan of the Saudis either. But it seems that the US are backing them in order to get to the Iranians who are much more of a threat to the world. In a region full of crappy countries, you have to make compromises. Also Saudi has shown some signs of moderation. They’ve stopped the extent to which they’re applying dogmatic Islamic ideology to their foreign policy. Things like them allying with Israel demonstrate this. Most of these countries still have it out for the Jooooooos.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

This is not an Obama/Trump thing. This is American policy. Go in without justification, create an almighty mess and leave, leaving everyone else to deal with the fallout whilst they bolster border security to ride out the storm. They've been doing it since Vietnam.

And by the way, Obama didn't create Isis. It was the internment camps set up by Bush which were the genesis of Isis.

I never said it was exclusively an Obama/Trump thing.

By the way history has shown that when America stays in a country it invades for an extended period of time, that country actually becomes a better place. Uncomfortable fact I know.

Germany occupied for decades after WW2 becomes a stable democracy. Likewise with Korea. In both Vietnam and Iraq they pulled out when the going got tough so the presidents of the time wanted to score cheap political wins at home and both countries collapsed into chaos.

Also I never said Obama created ISIS. ISIS may have had it’s origins among former prisoners in American camps, but they sure as hell wouldn’t have taken over half of Iraq if Obama hadn’t pulled out when he did.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I never said it was exclusively an Obama/Trump thing.

By the way history has shown that when America stays in a country it invades for an extended period of time, that country actually becomes a better place. Uncomfortable fact I know.

Germany occupied for decades after WW2 becomes a stable democracy. Likewise with Korea. In both Vietnam and Iraq they pulled out when the going got tough so the presidents of the time wanted to score cheap political wins at home and both countries collapsed into chaos.

Will you stop grasping at straws. Germany was already a democracy before Hitler came to power, it was hardly a leap for them to turn away from dictatorship back towards democracy. Korea may be an example but the US don't stay to bring democracy they stay when the country is a useful military staging base which korea was.

notobtuse

Limpy wrote: »

Show your proof.

Why ask if you won't believe it anyway? But from January 2018:

https://www.westernjournal.com/obama-warned-deadliest-terrorist/

jon1981

This lad was probably a pain in the arse to the current Iranian leader. I reckon a deal was struck between the US and Iran, a deal we'll never know about. Part of the deal was taking this lad out.

Nothing will come of this.

Fonny122

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I never said it was exclusively an Obama/Trump thing.

By the way history has shown that when America stays in a country it invades for an extended period of time, that country actually becomes a better place. Uncomfortable fact I know.

Germany occupied for decades after WW2 becomes a stable democracy. Likewise with Korea. In both Vietnam and Iraq they pulled out when the going got tough so the presidents of the time wanted to score cheap political wins at home and both countries collapsed into chaos.

Also I never said Obama created ISIS. ISIS may have had it’s origins among former prisoners in American camps, but they sure as hell wouldn’t have taken over half of Iraq if Obama hadn’t pulled out when he did.

You've kind of left out a WHOLE lot of nations there, not least of all Iran in which the US intervention and puppet dictator were so popular that they led to the 1979 revolution.

In the year 2000, Sadam spoke of his plans to drop the American dollar, and instead trade Iraqi oil using the Euro.

To this point, in the main, all oil transactions were done using the US Petro-dollar which took almost 100 years to establish. This could not be allowed happen because it would mean contagion.

In 2011, Gadaffi planned to establish an African currency called the Dinar, and use it for trading oil. the US were very quick to move on him.

In 2012, because Iran had been locked out of the SWIFT system for trading oil, it was forced to start swapping its oil for commodities with India, Turkey, China and then Russia came on-board a few years later. Within weeks of this, the US moved three of its aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf.

America has been waiting for its moment to move on Iran because of the real threat to the Dollar this trading for commodities has caused.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In 2011, Gadaffi planned to establish an African currency called the Dinar, and use it for trading oil.

He also hoped to be king of all Africa and he became the laughing stock amongst African leaders ,

Don't believe the petrodollar nonsense


Next will be some story about the straight of Hormuz but guess what oil coming through the straight is down across the board over a number of decades as countries move away from oil and fossil fuels for self sufficient energy ,

Who ever thought going green would take away power from the crazy middle East

jmreire

Limpy wrote: »

The Shia in Saudi Arabia are being treated the same. What do you have to say about them.

Nothing, as I've never been in Saudi Arabia. I speak about my own personal experiences, in both Iran and Syria. So my knowledge of how the Shias are treated there is limited to what I have heard or read about.They are in a minority, and as such in the past have been treated very harshly, no surprises there I suppose, give that the majority of Saudi's are Sunni. How it is at the moment, I have no idea, and even less so as to what can be done about it if they are still being persecuted.
Generally, in Islamic Country's, the majority, be it Shia or Sunni, do not treat their minority brothers well, and this situation is constantly being exploited and used to foment division.
In Syria, I've sat down at the same table and eaten with Shia's, Sunni's, Christian's. Palestinian's etc. Their religion ( or lack of it) was left outside.

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

In 2011, Gadaffi planned to establish an African currency called the Dinar, and use it for trading oil. the US were very quick to move on him.

He'd been talking about the Gold Dinar for years but never moved on it.

What was happening was he was extorting American Oil and Infrastructure corporations for money on threat of ripping up their licenses to do business in his country.

He also extorted the money to pay the Lockerbie compensation from said same companies.

Ulysses Gaze

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

He'd been talking about the Gold Dinar for years but never moved on it.

What was happening was he was extorting American Oil and Infrastructure corporations for money on threat of ripping up their licenses to do business in his country.

He also extorted the money to pay the Lockerbie compensation from said same companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

He also hoped to be king of all Africa and he became the laughing stock amongst African leaders ,

Don't believe the petrodollar nonsense


Next will be some story about the straight of Hormuz but guess what oil coming through the straight is down across the board over a number of decades as countries move away from oil and fossil fuels for self sufficient energy ,

Who ever thought going green would take away power from the crazy middle East

this book is a very interesting read

[Removed Image]

Link to the review: https://www.amazon.com/Petrodollar-Warfare-Iraq-Future-Dollar/dp/0865715149

Ive just read that I cant post images on this thread

ArchXStanton

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No, I don’t think so. The approach by the UN and the EU was to open Iran up to the world to encourage them to moderate. Appeasement for want of a better word. It failed. They did not stop sponsoring terror.

By the way, I’m no fan of the Saudis either. But it seems that the US are backing them in order to get to the Iranians who are much more of a threat to the world. In a region full of crappy countries, you have to make compromises. Also Saudi has shown some signs of moderation. They’ve stopped the extent to which they’re applying dogmatic Islamic ideology to their foreign policy. Things like them allying with Israel demonstrate this. Most of these countries still have it out for the Jooooooos.

Aye those dastardly Iranians creating chaos everywhere....

List of countries the US has tried meddling/regime change in....

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012