Delusion is strong with you.
Control of their resources isn’t the issue here - desire to build nukes and fund proxy wars and in this case carry out attacks on the US is the issue.
Iran chose to attack the US, the US responded...
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Delusion is strong with you.
Control of their resources isn’t the issue here - desire to build nukes and fund proxy wars and in this case carry out attacks on the US is the issue.
Iran chose to attack the US, the US responded...
Nope, why?
Except somehow when we do the same things it's not terrorism, it's "spreading freedom" or some jazz. How many times have we armed and funded insurgents in foreign lands? Hint: a lot. Including recently.
Iraq wants them gone now.
They had an agreement with Iraq that they would get permission to use their air space. They then in this instance decided it wasn't important to do so, and basically violated Iraq's airspace and sovereignty to act unilaterally.
The US in "doing what it wants" shocker. Again.
So the US can do what it wants regardless of any agreements it has in place, if it (alone) feels that it has just cause? So again, might makes right...
But then
Both Cyprus and Kenya fought by many troops who also fought in WW2 - So the comment of "having become what our fathers fought in WW2." doesn't make any sense unless you're suggesting that those who fought against tyranny in WW2 are the very same troops who then did a complete 180 and became evil (my term not yours) themselves in Cyprus and Kenya? I'm just a little confused by the duality of saying the WW2 troops were good but then evil a decade later?
Because our side is been led by the Americans
, so yeah I am going to have an issue with that. We're supposed to lead by example right? I am not trying to defend Iran but you seem to be doing the very thing you're accusing me of. America has dozens of military bases surrounding Iran, America successfully overthrew an Iranian government, America shot down an Iranian airliner (lied about the circumstances) and then treated the captain of that ship as a war hero, America has betrayed a growing list of 'allies' in the ME to serve their interests, America have reneged on the JCPOA, America bomb various parts of the ME with impunity, America are in cahoots with Saudi Arabia who themselves export and fund Sunni terrorism in the region and have continuously committed suspected war crimes in Yemen, America have themselves been accused of committing several war crimes in the region, they lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and they have lied about their handling of Afghanistan and their end goals. So yes I would absolutely call their actions egregious, provocative and aggressive. FFS I forgot this peach - at one time the American government were funding two separate 'moderate militias' who fought against each other (CIA for one and the Pentagon for the other I believe).Iran have also exported terrorism, committed/been accused war crimes and committed other atrocities themselves and through proxies. So how has America's actions in the ME helped things? Where is your outrage about SA? And if we're meant to be the good guys - how can you justify that list? Are you prepared to accept America are just as filthy and deceitful, if not worse? More importantly are you prepared to accept our ME policy has been an abject failure and we have only made things worse.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,435
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
Our side? I thought "we" (I'm in the U.K. for the avoidance of doubt) were asking for restraint and for diplomacy to be given a chance? That was the latest news I read, not aware that anything has changed on that front(?).Because our side is been led by the Americans
Not sure what SA refers to?
For sure the U.S. has made mistakes in the M.E. We could go through each and every mistake and analyse them, but we're talking about the U.S. taking out an Iranian General here, I dont see this particular instance as a mistake.
Last edited:
Yes see bellow
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
That isnt what was said, you really do post some exaggerated baloney
The English language isn't your strong point yes? See above.
Funny having better understanding on it while is my third language. (fourth if you count Ancient Greek which learned before English).
Eh? They were attacked surely it is up to them how they respond - why can’t they?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,435
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
No he didn't. I've already addressed this point, scroll up for my response.
So you trying to explain to us what he actually said? Are you paid by II or you are member of Brigade 77?
You're asking why the US can't attack a target in a foreign country against the will of that country, when it has already signed up to consulting that country before using its airspace. And then didn't.
And now that country wants them to leave and Trump has said they won't leave unless that host country pays them to leave...
Come on, now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,435
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
Yes, think of me as your own personal interpreter. And you're welcome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 3,435
- Location
- Norfolk Broads
Abbottabad? Was okay for Obama to do it.
For one we weren't even notified beforehand, another issue of trust and showing us how rewarding that special relationship is. Regarding what Britain is saying....
On the surface, makes sense but America themselves have threatened disproportionate retaliation so surely this messaging should be applied to both sides.
Apologies, I was referring to Saudi Arabia with SA but this quote is poignant. Again nothing wrong with the statement on the surface until you realise the sheer hypocrisy of it. SA have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemem, bombing the likes of homes, hospitals and schools (including a centre for the blind) and what did we do? Sell them weapons (including cluster bombs which have been illegal for years) and provide training. Once too much attention came to this, we decided to slightly scale things back with am embargo and still managed to sell a few illegal items - twice! So why are we still selling weapons and the best of friends with a nation that does the very thing we (correctly) accuse another of?
I am all for restraint but I will eat my proverbial hat if anything we say makes one bit of difference with America considering they have acted unilaterally on so many issues.
It really doesn't need line by line analysis. Invading Iraq was a lie. Staying in Afghanistan is a lie. The goalposts keep moving as to when this ends. It's cost thousands of US/UK military lives and indirectly and directly hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Iraqi/Syrian/Libyan/Afghan lives. And all for what? As I said before, if Solemani's death leads to a better and safer position - good job. You honestly think a Trump administration is going to do a better job than Bush and Obama?
Last edited:
No I think of you are propagandist shill, because you removed the second part of my quote trying to firefight what Trump actually said.
I think you misunderstand.
A lot of us are saying that actually, it's not OK for the US to behave like this. Regardless of who is President.
You can't be saying, "It's OK, they've always been like this. It's nothing new" and using that as a justification?