US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

ArchXStanton

Sean.3516 wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure the US have military personnel guarding oilfields in Syria

Ironicname

ArchXStanton wrote:

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

What does the asterisk mean in your copy and paste?

pablo128

Are all these American soldiers going to be coming through Shannon again? Hopefully not, and hopefully it doesn't become a target.

Sean.3516

jon1981 wrote: »

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.

Glad you’re here to keep us informed of high level international espionage.

ArchXStanton

Ironicname wrote: »

What does the asterisk mean in your copy and paste?

It indicates they were successful... How sad, but let's get back to how Iran is the biggest threat to world peace...

jon1981

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Glad you’re here to keep us informed of high level international espionage.

Dumbing in down for the people! Happy to help.

Sean.3516

ArchXStanton wrote: »

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

To be honest I would much rather have America influencing these places than China, Russia or Iran.

This idea that if America wasn’t involved, the vacuum would stay a vacuum forever is naive.

It is in the nature of powerful countries to attempt to influence other less powerful countries. Personally I don’t find any issue with their influence per se if the effects are more positive than whatever the alternative happens to be. Which in the case of the US it most definitely is.

Ironicname

ArchXStanton wrote:

It indicates they were successful... How sad, but let's get back to how Iran is the biggest threat to world peace...

Successful in what?

You were the one who gave the list. Explain it.

Limpy

:cool:

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To be honest I would much rather have America influencing these places than China, Russia or Iran.

This idea that if America wasn’t involved, the vacuum would stay a vacuum forever is naive.

It is in the nature of powerful countries to attempt to influence other less powerful countries. Personally I don’t find any issue with their influence per se if the effects are more positive than whatever the alternative happens to be. Which in the case of the US it most definitely is.

So what's your end game? Take over the whole world?

Sean.3516

jon1981 wrote: »

Dumbing in down for the people! Happy to help.

More like conspiracy theorising. Not that helpful.

Fonny122

Ironicname wrote: »

What does the asterisk mean in your copy and paste?

The ones with asterisks involved THE US outright overthrowing those governments

williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list

J Mysterio

pablo128 wrote: »

Are all these American soldiers going to be coming through Shannon again? Hopefully not, and hopefully it doesn't become a target.

They still are coming through, all the time.

Odhinn

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.

I'm afraid thats errant nonsense. The threat from the middle east to the west is borne of saudi influenced salafism, not shia, who are considered a "legitimate target" of IS/Al qaeda ect.


Israel is a colonial power given free reighn by US support.

Sean.3516

Limpy wrote: »

:cool:

So what's your end game? Take over the whole world?

Hell no!

I have no endgame. I’m just a lowly engineering student. I’m for whatever prevents unnecessary suffering and maintains peace. Believe it or not America’s the best vehicle by which to achieve that.

jon1981

Sean.3516 wrote: »

More like conspiracy theorising. Not that helpful.

Are you saying an agreement between these nations of this nature is not a probable scenario?

I tell you what, I'll pay you 1 shiny euro coin if a military response comes.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To be honest I would much rather have America influencing these places than China, Russia or Iran.

This idea that if America wasn’t involved, the vacuum would stay a vacuum forever is naive.

It is in the nature of powerful countries to attempt to influence other less powerful countries. Personally I don’t find any issue with their influence per se if the effects are more positive than whatever the alternative happens to be. Which in the case of the US it most definitely is.

Murica FCUK YA, USA USA USA

greenpilot

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Pretty sure the US have military personnel guarding oilfields in Syria

Oilfields in Syria? Ever been to Syria?

Limpy

J Mysterio wrote: »

They still are coming through, all the time.

Shannon is a legitimate target. But it's safe as from been an Iranian target. Unless someone goes in and stabs a few people in the name of Iran. Might put people on edge and ask questions of the Shannon management RE hosting troops.

Different story if it was US V Russia then Shannon would be well within range.

ArchXStanton

Sean.3516 wrote: »

To be honest I would much rather have America influencing these places than China, Russia or Iran.

This idea that if America wasn’t involved, the vacuum would stay a vacuum forever is naive.

It is in the nature of powerful countries to attempt to influence other less powerful countries. Personally I don’t find any issue with their influence per se if the effects are more positive than whatever the alternative happens to be. Which in the case of the US it most definitely is.

And you consider the effects on these countries as positive?!? Tell that to Iraq, Libya or any number of South American countries were they've literally killed millions, you've a warped mind or completely brainwashed that the US is some kind of world good cop, these people are literally scumbags

Limpy

greenpilot wrote: »

Oilfields in Syria? Ever been to Syria?

Did you only wake up, go back to sleep.

Fonny122

ArchXStanton wrote: »

And you consider the effects on these countries as positive?!? Tell that to Iraq, Libya or any number of South American countries were they've literally killed millions, you've a warped mind or completely brainwashed that the US is some kind of world good cop, these people are literally scumbags

of this I am sure - rewind or 5 years and that same person was complaining ednlesy that Obama was a war monger, droning the middle east to bits and flooding Europe with refugees as a result.

I would bet the house on it quicker than they will deny it.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hell no!

I have no endgame. I’m just a lowly engineering student. I’m for whatever prevents unnecessary suffering and maintains peace. Believe it or not America’s the best vehicle by which to achieve that.

Prevents Uncessary suffering? Tell that the the kids of Syria, Iraq, afghanistan, Yemen, Venezuela. But they make good movies and burgers so it's all good.

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

I'm afraid thats errant nonsense. The threat from the middle east to the west is borne of saudi influenced salafism, not shia, who are considered a "legitimate target" of IS/Al qaeda ect.


Israel is a colonial power given free reighn by US support.

Iran is a much more fundamentalist country than Saudi at least in terms of it’s leadership.

This is the reason they’re dangerous. Because if they get nuclear weapons they might actually use them.

It might be better to back Saudi, as morally problematic as that is, than face a North Korea type situation in the Middle East.

What has Israel colonised exactly? Over 90% of Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian authority. Israel just maintains control of the security situation to stop the place flooding with terrorists. 1 million Arabs live in Israel. Not a single Jew lives in Gaza.

Limpy

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hell no!

I have no endgame. I’m just a lowly engineering student. I’m for whatever prevents unnecessary suffering and maintains peace. Believe it or not America’s the best vehicle by which to achieve that.

Makes no sense. Where's this peace you refer to.

pablo128

Limpy wrote: »

Shannon is a legitimate target. But it's safe as from been an Iranian target. Unless someone goes in and stabs a few people in the name of Iran. Might put people on edge and ask questions of the Shannon management RE hosting troops.

Different story if it was US V Russia then Shannon would be well within range.

I could get in my car, drive to Shannon airport right now, and most likely be able to climb a fence onto a runway without too much difficulty.

If I could do it, as well as some middle aged politicians, I'm sure the Iranians could find a way.

greenpilot

Limpy wrote: »

Did you only wake up, go back to sleep.

Ok, back to school. When I lived there 2009 to 2011, Syria was producing just 2.5billion barrels of oil compared to Iraq at 150billion and Saudis 270billion. Syrias oio production is vastly reduced due to the conflict and I can guarantee you that there are no US troops guarding oilfields in Syria. The only policing of Syrian infrastructure and industry is being undertaken by Soviet Chechnya Muslim MPs brought in by Russia in order to pursue a hearths and minds policy. Trust me I'm very much awake. Thanks.

Beasty

Limpy wrote: »

Did you only wake up, go back to sleep.

Do not post in this thread again

greenpilot

jmreire wrote: »

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.

Interesting...when were you in Syria? I loved the place..

ArchXStanton

greenpilot wrote: »

Ok, back to school. When I lived there 2009 to 2011, Syria was producing just 2.5billion barrels of oil compared to Iraq at 150billion and Saudis 270billion. Syrias oio production is vastly reduced due to the conflict and I can guarantee you that there are no US troops guarding oilfields in Syria. The only policing of Syrian infrastructure and industry is being undertaken by Soviet Chechnya Muslim MPs brought in by Russia in order to pursue a hearths and minds policy. Trust me I'm very much awake. Thanks.

Uh-huh...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/24/us-military-syria-tanks-oil-fields

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/us-troops-guarding-oil-fields-syria-rules-of-engagement-2019-11

Gatling

pablo128 wrote: »

I could get in my car, drive to Shannon airport right now, and most likely be able to climb a fence onto a runway without too much difficulty.

If I could do it, as well as some middle aged politicians, I'm sure the Iranians could find a way.

Very loosely guarded considering ,

I'm sure plenty of the newly arrived could walk into any city ,town and unleash havok for a few virgins and blaming America for their lifes woes