Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Options
1…1920222425…123

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The reason nobody took him out before was they didn't want an escalation in the region. Trump decided to go for it despite that and called them (Soleimani and other military leaders) "terrorist warlords".
    Seems to me it was business as usual and Trump wanted a win
    The Iraqis didn't want any part of it and have asked the US to stop using Iraq as a battleground.
    This was a Trump move for Trump.


  • Options
    #633
    Billy Mays
    Registered Users Posts: 3,237 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    Voltex wrote: »
    I see in todays Indo that the British had a SAS team deployed to take out Suleimani as far back as 2003, but Milliband bottled it just before the final order was given.

    This fella seems to have been on the radar for along time.
    So going by some poster's logic, if this latest incident does lead to war between the USA and Iran we can squarely lay the blame at the feet of Ed Milliband and the Blair government

    Cool


  • Options
    #634
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,598 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The reason nobody took him out before was they didn't want an escalation in the region. Trump decided to go for it despite that and called them (Soleimani and other military leaders) "terrorist warlords".
    Seems to me it was business as usual and Trump wanted a win
    The Iraqis didn't want any part of it and have asked the US to stop using Iraq as a battleground.
    This was a Trump move for Trump.

    Yes, but with this bold move the Iranians will think very carefully about their next move or future actions. The regime will be very nervous now, wondering if there is also a target on their backs. They are now in a terrible position with no obvious way out. They probably need to wait till after the US election is over and hope trump loses and is replaced with someone far more cautious.


  • Options
    #635
    MikeSoys
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭MikeSoys


    what was Russia's response? surprised to see on a well known website 'news media' the hand of qaseem showing his ring. retaliation? i would reckon ot will be with oil(attack on refinery), cyber on infrastructure or putting pressure on the us dollar.. the odd rouge attach on a us embassy likely also happen. ..via proxy obviously


  • Options
    #636
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    jackboy wrote: »
    Yes, but with this bold move the Iranians will think very carefully about their next move or future actions. The regime will be very nervous now, wondering if there is also a target on their backs. They are now in a terrible position with no obvious way out. They probably need to wait till after the US election is over and hope trump loses and is replaced with someone far more cautious.

    Trump is trying to force a war or enough military kick back so the US and Israel can take hold.
    This was as much an act of 'terrorism' as if the Iranians bombed Bagdad to take out Pompeo.
    The US didnt ask Iraq for permission. No other nations were involved. This was Trump committing a possibly illegal act to bolster support at home IMO.
    Soleiman was a national hero it is unlikely they'll not react, which is Trump's plan.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    simongurnick
    Registered Users Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭simongurnick


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The reason nobody took him out before was they didn't want an escalation in the region. Trump decided to go for it despite that and called them (Soleimani and other military leaders) "terrorist warlords".
    Seems to me it was business as usual and Trump wanted a win
    The Iraqis didn't want any part of it and have asked the US to stop using Iraq as a battleground.
    This was a Trump move for Trump.

    Iran had been poking the bear a little more than usual recently. They know what they are up against now


  • Options
    #638
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    I really wish (..................) is Sunni by the way.


    Again, a false equivalence. The authorities in the west aren't worried at the prospect of Shia going on random killing sprees. It's offshoots of the wahabi sect that are the problem.
    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    If it means firing rockets into civilian population centers then yes.
    .


    So both Israel and the Palestinians are terrorists? An even handed view I suppose.
    Sean.3516 wrote: »
    The regions you’ve listed are autonomously governed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel maintains military control to stop terrorism from spilling into their borders. That’s not a colonial arrangement. They’ve been offered land for peace five times in the last hundred years and refused as they can’t tolerate a Jewish State beside them.




    Israel is colonising those areas. Israel maintains a military presence to protect it's civillian colonists there
    https://www.btselem.org/topic/settlements


  • Options
    #639
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    The top tier of the Iranian regime has always accepted there are targets on their back. Religious fanatics cope with that through believing that they will be martyrs and in paradise etc etc. So imagining they will be running scared is silly. The IRGC have been fighting in Iraq and Syria for years. These are hardened troops.

    The calculation for the regime isn’t personal it’s theological and political: unite the Shia, unite Islam, strengthen the “axis of resistance “ and annihilate Israel. They will live with humiliation if it buys them time to advance their goals. All they have to do is ensure Trump knows a land invasion of Iran will be terribly costly. He likes show and the gesture: he mightn’t have the balls (insert description of choice) to launch all out war.


  • Options
    #640
    jackboy
    Registered Users Posts: 4,598 ✭✭✭jackboy


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Soleiman was a national hero it is unlikely they'll not react, which is Trump's plan.

    For the leaders of the regime, it is a fine and dangerous line between a satisfactory retaliation and ending up dead in a ditch. Saddam and Ghadafi played close to the line too often. If Trump messes up the consequences are he won’t be re-elected.

    In response to KWAG2019, theological and political calculations are really tested with a gun to the head. The Iranian regime are in or close to that situation now. Time will tell if they are genuine or just more power hungry dictators using a cause to control people.


  • Options
    #641
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    The reason nobody took him out before was they didn't want an escalation in the region. Trump decided to go for it despite that and called them (Soleimani and other military leaders) "terrorist warlords".
    Seems to me it was business as usual and Trump wanted a win
    The Iraqis didn't want any part of it and have asked the US to stop using Iraq as a battleground.
    This was a Trump move for Trump.

    I see the Iraqi leader was at Soelomani's funeral today. Its hard to see Iraqi leadership turning against the country propping them up, but a souring of relations with the US could get messy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Trump is trying to force a war or enough military kick back so the US and Israel can take hold.
    This was as much an act of 'terrorism' as if the Iranians bombed Bagdad to take out Pompeo.
    The US didnt ask Iraq for permission. No other nations were involved. This was Trump committing a possibly illegal act to bolster support at home IMO.
    Soleiman was a national hero it is unlikely they'll not react, which is Trump's plan.

    Unquestionably illegal in my view, but brazen too. It's one thing to send a CIA hit squad, quite another to brazenly drone attack, post a pic of the stars and stripes and then shrug.


  • Options
    #643
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    I see the Iraqi leader was at Soelomani's funeral today. Its hard to see Iraqi leadership turning against the country propping them up, but a souring of relations with the US could get messy

    I expect the Iraqis to ask the US to leave. I hope they do too


  • Options
    #644
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Another calculation: Putin. Putin wants Europe isolated and NATO weakened. How does IRAN factor his support in? If it attacks the US then US can invoke NATO Article 5 and have a ready made coalition. Putin who is a backer of Iran to date would prefer a division on the issue of Iran. That might mean pressure for a different response. Which could suit Iran too to buy more time.

    And what does Europe do? I expect the back channels to Tehran are very busy.

    This is pivotal moment in many ways. Glued to the news I’m afraid!


  • Options
    #645
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Another calculation: Putin. Putin wants Europe isolated and NATO weakened. How does IRAN factor his support in? If it attacks the US then US can invoke NATO Article 5 and have a ready made coalition. Putin who is a backer of Iran to date would prefer a division on the issue of Iran. That might mean pressure for a different response. Which could suit Iran too to buy more time.

    And what does Europe do? I expect the back channels to Tehran are very busy.

    This is pivotal moment in many ways. Glued to the news I’m afraid!
    I would like Europe to stay out of it. But Ireland won't - we'll let the USA use Shannon as a military base, regardless of our position on any conflict.


  • Options
    #646
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Unquestionably illegal in my view, but brazen too. It's one thing to send a CIA hit squad, quite another to brazenly drone attack, post a pic of the stars and stripes and then shrug.




    They can, so they do. Same with the others on the UNSC.


  • Options
    #647
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    I would like Europe to stay out of it. But Ireland won't - we'll let the USA use Shannon as a military base, regardless of our position on any conflict.

    Ireland’s neutrality has always been pragmatically nuanced and should remain so. Europe has a real interest, an existential interest for the EU, in ensuring stability across North Africa and the Middle East. And in maintaining NATO against Putin. If Europe does not get actively involved in this issue it will be at the mercy of others desired outcome and none of those are to Europe’s advantage, some less disadvantageous is all that can be said.


  • Options
    #648
    cosybeach
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭cosybeach


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    I would like Europe to stay out of it. But Ireland won't - we'll let the USA use Shannon as a military base, regardless of our position on any conflict.
    welcome 4 killing scum....... unless ur a sinn fein supporter thrump wins

    Next step is nuke iran they are a failed society to live under dead liver


  • Options
    #649
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Ireland’s neutrality has always been pragmatically nuanced and should remain so. Europe has a real interest, an existential interest for the EU, in ensuring stability across North Africa and the Middle East. And in maintaining NATO against Putin. If Europe does not get actively involved in this issue it will be at the mercy of others desired outcome and none of those are to Europe’s advantage, some less disadvantageous is all that can be said.

    NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not activated by the USA starting a war.

    I should have said - I would like Europe to stay out of any armed conflict.


  • Options
    #650
    Ironicname
    Registered Users Posts: 1,177 ✭✭✭Ironicname


    KWAG2019 wrote:
    And Israel. And US elections.

    Nope. It's just oil


  • Options
    #651
    X111111111111
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭X111111111111


    The Iranian regime is now in a lose lose situation. America has made its move and not seeing a response will be viewed upon as weak but a strong response and the Americans will hit them even harder.

    President Trump is playing a blinder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not activated by the USA starting a war.

    I should have said - I would like Europe to stay out of any armed conflict.

    Any attack in the US by Iran will be presented as meeting conditions of Article 5.


  • Options
    #653
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    cosybeach wrote: »
    welcome 4 killing scum....... unless ur a sinn fein supporter thrump wins

    Next step is nuke iran they are a failed society to live under dead liver

    Times like these I'm reminded of the quote by Iranian Marjane Satrapi

    "The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don’t know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same..."


  • Options
    #654
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    X111111111111 wrote: »
    The Iranian regime is now in a lose lose situation. America has made its move and not seeing a response will be viewed upon as weak but a strong response and the Americans will hit them even harder.

    President Trump is playing a blinder.
    A non-lethal but powerful cyber response is not going to justify American armed response to many people.

    They've been investing in cyber capabilities heavily since Stuxnet. They might be advanced as they seemed to manage to decrypt the footage from a captured US drone.

    Ideally they will do something to humiliate Trump specifically, though this idea is probably fanciful.


  • Options
    #655
    KWAG2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 834 ✭✭✭KWAG2019


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    A non-lethal but powerful cyber response is not going to justify American armed response to many people.

    They've been investing in cyber capabilities heavily since Stuxnet. They might be advanced as they seemed to manage to decrypt the footage from a captured US drone.

    Ideally they will do something to humiliate Trump specifically, though this idea is probably fanciful.

    Maybe a video of infidelity.


  • Options
    #656
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Maybe a video of infidelity.
    Yeah.
    Dear Putin,
    Can we have the wee wee tape please?
    Tuvm,
    Iran cyber warfare head guy.


  • Options
    #657
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    walshb wrote: »
    This one man will be replaced instantly by many more men, many more even more vengeful and hateful and impassioned....

    But not necessarily as good. This guy was living only conflict for nearly 40 years. One of 69 people recognized by Iran for fighting in every single battle of the Iran Iraq war, because he refused to take leave or transfer. Afterwards, he transferred to where he could cause other mayhem and has been involved in unconventional activities ever since.

    He got complacent or overly brazen at the end, but whoever takes over from him will succeed, not replace.


  • Options
    #658
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    But not necessarily as good. This guy was living only conflict for nearly 40 years. One of 69 people recognized by Iran for fighting in every single battle of the Iran Iraq war, because he refused to take leave or transfer. Afterwards, he transferred to where he could cause other mayhem and has been involved in unconventional activities ever since.

    He got complacent or overly brazen at the end, but whoever takes over from him will succeed, not replace.

    He did more to fight isis than the US ever did...


  • Options
    #659
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »
    I would like Europe to stay out of it. But Ireland won't - we'll let the USA use Shannon as a military base, regardless of our position on any conflict.

    Refueling stopover, not base, there's no troops nor weapons stationed there.


  • Options
    #660
    nacho libre
    Registered Users Posts: 16,851 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    But not necessarily as good. This guy was living only conflict for nearly 40 years. One of 69 people recognized by Iran for fighting in every single battle of the Iran Iraq war, because he refused to take leave or transfer. Afterwards, he transferred to where he could cause other mayhem and has been involved in unconventional activities ever since.

    He got complacent or overly brazen at the end, but whoever takes over from him will succeed, not replace.

    He got complacent because two previous administrations buckled at the thought of murdering him. As a consequence he likely thought himself as untouchable. Also, as always in these situations, it's likely someone in his inner circle was working with American Intelligence to help track his movements. Of course technology will have helped a lot bringing about his demise, though.

    His mayhem helped defeat ISIS in Iraq, but you would likely be keen to play down his role in that, and give most of the credit to the american trained Iraqi and Kurdish special forces.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    alchemist33 wrote: »
    I see the Iraqi leader was at Soelomani's funeral today. Its hard to see Iraqi leadership turning against the country propping them up, but a souring of relations with the US could get messy

    A big response is developing and I think the American public better be prepared for casualties. Iran killed Mike Pence or Pompeo by an air strike how would the US react? Iran undoubtedly giving the country time to mourn and then all options are on the table for strikes across the middle east.

    Iran controls Iraq now that why the Iraq leader announcing the US military to get out and examining ways to kick them out by law. Iraq population is predominately Shia and by removing Saddam had the opposite effect and Iran now a regional superpower. 


Advertisement