US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

skooterblue2

jmreire wrote: »

Yes, skooterblue2, you are right. Outside of Iran / Syria / Lebanon / Iraq / Israel , and of course the US, Soleimani was relatively unknown. But within these groups, he was known as the Nr2 Man in Charge, 2nd only to Ayatollah Hassan Rouhani. He did not get to that position without earning it..... aside from everything else, this was some man for one man , and definitely not your average Iranian. No doubt he will be replaced, but with some one of the same talent? I very much doubt it, and that's where it will hurt Iran.

When you say No.2 man you mean No.1 man on the ground? He was the overseer and made sure things went to plan.

bunderoon

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Maybe the CIA are engineering to put in their own man to keep the pot bubbling but not let it boil over? Isnt that the way we all want it? Keep the arabs fighting each other but not organising

What talent? What do you mean?

skooterblue2

bunderoon wrote: »

What were you inferring when you said that you dont get to be a general overnight?

They have a history of getting stuff done. They get tangible results. The unit performs and gets a citation but its the OC that gets the credit and promotion. You cant decide at 45 while you are a Major that you are going to get your career in gear and get them oak leaves, you are already behind. Same as in the work place. You cant tell who will be CEO but you can tell who wont be on the board by performance.

skooterblue2

bunderoon wrote: »

What talent? What do you mean?

All these operations are long term plans. They could have found a junior officer who was a bit gay or had a gambling habit or something to that effect. Get them into debt or a compromising photo. Make the problem go away with a bit of money or remind them of the photos. Once they return with one piece of information they are on the hook. Then give them something that gives them a lucky break or confounds thier compeditors and the next thing they are up the ladder and engineered to the position they can be of service.

Dont believe me? Have a look up the North at Donaldson and freddie Scapattichi and the unrevealed "Fisherman"

Gatling

charlie14 wrote: »

America kills someone in another state because he

Was responsible for deaths of American soldiers in Iraq .


Shooting a drone is nothing killing hundreds of Americans comes consequences .

jmreire

pearcider wrote: »

I don’t get this you’re almost saying well the Iranians might suicide bomb a few western cafeterias and therefore we should just appease them. F that. Use your strengths I say which is the greatest Air Force the world has ever seen. The US have been incredibly restrained. Trump actually turned back a massive air strike only a few weeks ago. Tehran had it coming.

Yeah the gap between the Iranians and the Americans is even more vast that it was with the Japanese so they’d really want to pipe down with their threats. Or what happened to Tokyo will happen to Tehran.

What I am pearcider, is a realist, there is lots of talk about US military superiority here on the forum. Sure in conventional warfare, air superiority submarines and even nuclear if you want to go that far, the US is tops, no question. There is even discussion of how long such a war would actually last. Another replay of Iraq? Well that was back in 1993, and it's still going on, and not only that, but stand's every chance of becoming "Active" again. And if they do ( and I think that they will ) it will be by numerous "Hit and Run, roadside bombs, booby traps, any kind of death dealing device, you name it, and it will be on the list. I doubt very much that the Iranians are going to go "toe to toe" with far superior US forces for any extended length of time. The US is not going to nuke Iran, or even "bomb it back to the stone age " At worst, they will use missile's for precision bombing of selected target's, and damage Iranian infrastructure, especially anything to do with Iran's nuclear manufacturing. The Iranian response will be to hit Americans anywhere and anytime they can, including cafeteria's. What do you think makes Countries ungovernable???? This is not appeasement, it's reality.

Smiles35

skooterblue2 wrote: »

All these operations are long term plans. They could have found a junior officer who was a bit gay or had a gambling habit or something to that effect. Get them into debt or a compromising photo. Make the problem go away with a bit of money or remind them of the photos. Once they return with one piece of information they are on the hook. Then give them something that gives them a lucky break or confounds thier compeditors and the next thing they are up the ladder and engineered to the position they can be of service.

Dont believe me? Have a look up the North at Donaldson and freddie Scapattichi and the unrevealed "Fisherman"

Germany has lots of long words so everyone is ''in the know''. They educate their people that way.

jmreire

skooterblue2 wrote: »

When you say No.2 man you mean No.1 man on the ground? He was the overseer and made sure things went to plan.

I'd say much more than overseer...more like replacement for Khomeini if anything ever happened to him. He was a leader, not only militarily, but politically too. His "grip" on Iran ( and influence in Iraq and Lebanon ) was massive. That why this whole incident has escalated to a possible full scale war, short of "eliminating" the Ayatollah himself, a sitting head of state, Soleimani was the next best thing if it was the Iranian hierarchy the US wanted to hit. I don't think that was the intention, they just wanted rid of a military foe, who just happened to be highly placed in the Iranian Govt.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Gatling wrote: »

Was responsible for deaths of American soldiers in Iraq .


Shooting a drone is nothing killing hundreds of Americans comes consequences .

Why was there American soldiers in Iraq? America is the far side of the world. Odd

Gatling

Jessie Dazzling Armrest wrote: »

Why was there American soldiers in Iraq? America is the far side of the world. Odd

Odd no lets not pretend ,

Why were there Iranian forces inside Iraq killing Iraqi's as well as anyone else that didn't believe in their beliefs considering they were mortal enemies for a long time

threeball

jmreire wrote: »

I'd say much more than overseer...more like replacement for Khomeini if anything ever happened to him. He was a leader, not only militarily, but politically too. His "grip" on Iran ( and influence in Iraq and Lebanon ) was massive. That why this whole incident has escalated to a possible full scale war, short of "eliminating" the Ayatollah himself, a sitting head of state, Soleimani was the next best thing if it was the Iranian hierarchy the US wanted to hit. I don't think that was the intention, they just wanted rid of a military foe, who just happened to be highly placed in the Iranian Govt.

Suleimani was so influential he was the guy holding everything together and keeping the more extreme elements in check. He was extremely politically shrewd. Now he's gone all bets are off. Some elements will go rogue and create an absolute sh1t storm. The US took the handbrake off a truck parked at the top of a hill and jumped out.

threeball

Gatling wrote: »

Odd no lets not pretend ,

Why were there Iranian forces inside Iraq killing Iraqi's as well as anyone else that didn't believe in their beliefs considering they were mortal enemies for a long time

Read a book. Mortal enemies of the Sunni led Saddam Hussein Iraq, now that it's Shia led it has more in common with Iraq than any other country. They were also doing the work that the yanks wouldn't do in stamping out Isis.

Why would Iran let a country with the stated intent of removing their government just have free reign of the country next door. Only an idiot would allow such a thing.

Tony EH

Wasn't Donnie all about withdrawing from conflicts around the world? Wasn't part of his campaign about untangling America from global wars?

Just another lie so, that the Trump cultists conveniently forget.

Gatling

threeball wrote: »

They were also doing the work that the yanks wouldn't do in stamping out Isis.

They were doing the work ,


Another person claimed it was Russia some else it's Iran .

Can the real fighter's of Isis please stand up


Very little mention of the Kurds and 28 other players who did most of the work no

AllForIt

wildeside wrote: »

For all you grandstanding pro-interventionist armchair marine corps wannabes who would pi55 their pants in a fist fight please read up a bit on recent Iranian history. The west (US/UK..) has previous form here. Like for example this in 1953

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

i.e. the overthrow of a democratically elected government that wanted to nationalise the nations oil reserves.

So Iran was a democracy until the west intervened. Now we can't have that!

Despots and dictators are much better at doing the bidding of western (oil) interests.

The west have been ****ing up the middle east since before probably any of us here posting were born. And they continue to do so.

And yet still the macho apologists crawl out from the woodwork every single time.

I find it despicable how easily people defend and make excuses for war/violence and in the same breath make out the people being attacked are the savages that need to be civilised.

I am no fan of Islam or many aspects of culture in the middle east but we have lost the moral high ground as we've become the very monsters we proclaim to be fighting.

It's ****ing disgusting.

Now go back to sleep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZqRabzbZg

I find this rant to be a deliberately over simplified, non-nuanced account of history and where we are now, all cleverly told in a manner that frames the ppl you disagree with as armchair warmongers, whereas you hold a seat of ethical superiority, without us ever being able to verify if you actually do.

There are ppl who hate the West, ppl who actually are westerners, and it always seems to me that Western intervention in the middle-east seems like a very convenient way to express that hatred.

I for one am not a warmonger. I don't take the position that everything the West does has been right, I think they could have handled the Iraq situation better, a lot better, and the Vietnam war was a total and utter disaster.

But, because I admit the West don't get everything right, handled situations very badly, doesn't mean I think that there has never been any legitimate reason for the West to intervene.

Does anyone not find it telling, that after this incident, that you have massive crowds of Iranians chanting death to America. In the west you have democratic public demonstrations against our governments. When was the last time you ever saw an Iranian mass public demonstration against the Iranian government war-mongering activities. Not a chance in hell would you ever see that. Any yet we are expected to accept, that in states like Iran, that everything is honky dorky over there and all problems are devilishly created by the West.

So, the idea that there are no problems that need to addressed in relation to Iran is just simply naive and ridiculous.

As I always think about those who go back decades and decades to uncover the West's mistakes - I would really love to see how those ppl would have dealt with the various situations if they had the responsibility of being in charge.

mulbot

AllForIt wrote: »

I find this rant to be a deliberately over simplified, non-nuanced account of history and where we are now, all cleverly told in a manner that frames the ppl you disagree with as armchair warmongers, whereas you hold a seat of ethical superiority, without us ever being able to verify if you actually do.

There are ppl who hate the West, ppl who actually are westerners, and it always seems to me that Western intervention in the middle-east seems like a very convenient way to express that hatred.

I for one am not a warmonger. I don't take the position that everything the West does has been right, I think they could have handled the Iraq situation better, a lot better, and the Vietnam war was a total and utter disaster.

But, because I admit the West don't get everything right, handled situations very badly, doesn't mean I think that there has never been any legitimate reason for the West to intervene.

Does anyone not find it telling, that after this incident, that you have massive crowds of Iranians chanting death to America. In the west you have democratic public demonstrations against our governments. When was the last time you ever saw an Iranian mass public demonstration against the Iranian government war-mongering activities. Not a chance in hell would you ever see that. Any yet we are expected to accept, that in states like Iran, that everything is honky dorky over there and all problems are devilishly created by the West.

So, the idea that there are no problems that need to addressed in relation to Iran is just simply naive and ridiculous.

As I always think about those who go back decades and decades to uncover the West's mistakes - I would really love to see how those ppl would have dealt with the various situations if they had the responsibility of being in charge.

That's some stupid post

threeball

Gatling wrote: »

They were doing the work ,


Another person claimed it was Russia some else it's Iran .

Can the real fighter's of Isis please stand up


Very little mention of the Kurds and 28 other players who did most of the work no

See this is yet again showing your lack of knowledge. The kurds were begging the yanks for help in fighting isis, just weapons would suffice but they ignored them. They turned to Soleimani and he asked them what they needed and provided 3 plane loads of the requested weapons the next day.

He also armed other factions to take on Isis but of course you didn't know that as you hadn't a clue who he was before Friday and you just assume the Americans are arming all these groups. The Americans only helped out after he got involved. He even helped the Americans in their attacks on Isis.

Btw this guy offered to help the US locate bin Laden and Al Queda commanders in the days after 9/11. Instead Bush put Iran on the axis of evil list and totally ended any chance of removing the impasse the countries had. Just shows you how really badly the US wanted bin Laden doesn't it.

ArchXStanton

Gatling wrote: »

They were doing the work ,


Another person claimed it was Russia some else it's Iran .

Can the real fighter's of Isis please stand up


Very little mention of the Kurds and 28 other players who did most of the work no

Completely deluded if you think Russia didn't swing that war, while uncle Sam sat twiddling his thumbs for years as chaos ensued, they picked it up a bit when the Russians entered alright, afraid of losing their head choppers and Assad staying in place...a right spanner in the works for them

bunderoon

AllForIt wrote: »

I find this rant to be a deliberately over simplified, non-nuanced account of history and where we are now, all cleverly told in a manner that frames the ppl you disagree with as armchair warmongers, whereas you hold a seat of ethical superiority, without us ever being able to verify if you actually do.

There are ppl who hate the West, ppl who actually are westerners, and it always seems to me that Western intervention in the middle-east seems like a very convenient way to express that hatred.

I for one am not a warmonger. I don't take the position that everything the West does has been right, I think they could have handled the Iraq situation better, a lot better, and the Vietnam war was a total and utter disaster.

But, because I admit the West don't get everything right, handled situations very badly, doesn't mean I think that there has never been any legitimate reason for the West to intervene.

Does anyone not find it telling, that after this incident, that you have massive crowds of Iranians chanting death to America. In the west you have democratic public demonstrations against our governments. When was the last time you ever saw an Iranian mass public demonstration against the Iranian government war-mongering activities. Not a chance in hell would you ever see that. Any yet we are expected to accept, that in states like Iran, that everything is honky dorky over there and all problems are devilishly created by the West.

So, the idea that there are no problems that need to addressed in relation to Iran is just simply naive and ridiculous.

As I always think about those who go back decades and decades to uncover the West's mistakes - I would really love to see how those ppl would have dealt with the various situations if they had the responsibility of being in charge.

No one is a fan of war here.
I'd hazard a guess that 'Death to America' has something to do with the US murdering their General and going by the media, it was like their vice president. Can you imagine if an Iranian drone murdered the U.S Vice President? I'd expect not only calls in the U.S to turn Iran to a big lump of glass, but to actually go and do it.

Iran is surrounded by U.S bases and Israel has been calling for the U.S to invade and change it's regime and by proxy, control their resources.
I'm not a fan of Iran. But can understand their reaction, not only by the murder of one of their own, but by the crippling embargoes that has been in place now for years.
Now with a stereotypical impressionable narcissist in the White House and having a son in law which his advisor (Dual Israeli/ U.S citizen), the people who want war now have the best opportunity to do so. And they will.
Hundreds of thousands will die and for what? F**k all. Iran to me, is the line in the sand between the west and Russia,China & NK.

dresden8

I remember when US air power won in Iraq, Afghahistan, Vietnam and North Korea. USA USA USA............

dresden8

bunderoon wrote: »

No one is a fan of war here.
I'd hazard a guess that 'Death to America' has something to do with the US murdering their General and going by the media, it was like their vice president. Can you imagine if an Iranian drone murdered the U.S Vice President? I'd expect not only calls in the U.S to turn Iran to a big lump of glass, but to actually go and do it.

Iran is surrounded by U.S bases and Israel has been calling for the U.S to invade and change it's regime and by proxy, control their resources.
I'm not a fan of Iran. But can understand their reaction, not only by the murder of one of their own, but by the crippling embargoes that has been in place now for years.
Now with a stereotypical impressionable narcissist in the White House and having a son in law which his advisor (Dual Israeli/ U.S citizen), the people who want war now have the best opportunity to do so. And they will.
Hundreds of thousands will die and for what? F**k all. Iran to me, is the line in the sand between the west and Russia,China & NK.

Iran is Chinas oil supplier. This is more than Iran. US Japanese war was about oil.

History isn't hard. It's the easiest subject on the curriculum. It's on the news every day.

volchitsa

AllForIt wrote: »

I find this rant to be a deliberately over simplified, non-nuanced account of history and where we are now, all cleverly told in a manner that frames the ppl you disagree with as armchair warmongers, whereas you hold a seat of ethical superiority, without us ever being able to verify if you actually do.

There are ppl who hate the West, ppl who actually are westerners, and it always seems to me that Western intervention in the middle-east seems like a very convenient way to express that hatred.

And I think this is a complete fiction - westerners who hate the west, really?
It's just a way of smearing people you don't agree with by making out that they are in fact traitors to their own country. That way you don't have to argue your position, because the the opposite side is by definition wrong and even treacherous. It's an old trick.

Gatling

threeball wrote: »

See this is yet again showing your lack of knowledge. The kurds were begging the yanks for help in fighting isis,

Whom they obliged with weapons and special forces and airpower to fight isis .the kurds in turn became the most effective weapon to counter Isis on the ground backed by air power .


No point coming along thinking you know everything and a scewed view of a terrorist in chief ,
It never ends well

J Mysterio

dresden8 wrote: »

I remember when US air power won in Iraq, Afghahistan, Vietnam and North Korea. USA USA USA............

Interesting username. Especially considering your post.

Curious_Case

dresden8 wrote: »

I remember when US air power won in Iraq, Afghahistan, Vietnam and North Korea. USA USA USA............

Yes, they have a formidable air force, but I can't see Russia and/or China staying silent forever.

Trump may yet learn that "sniffing and pawing at the funny thing" can result in "a snout full of spines".

Padre_Pio

J Mysterio wrote: »

Interesting username. Especially considering your post.

What was the last war the US decisively won?

bunderoon

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What was the last war the US decisively won?

War of Independence??

J Mysterio

Here is a long read RE Soleimani.
It's very informative indeed (and balanced considering its source):

https://ctc.usma.edu/qassem-soleimani-irans-unique-regional-strategy/

Also intersting is Soleimani's hometown. Quite stunning images from there.

https://inniran.com/things-to-do/city-of-kerman

J Mysterio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What was the last war the US decisively won?

What?

whirlwind.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What was the last war the US decisively won?

Grenada