US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
That depends on what kind of numbers you attribute to "bunch" and "few" to be fair. Ideally you would want two missiles per incoming missile to reasonably guarantee success.
I dunno what the current status is but the S-400 and 500 were having scaling issues when it came to saturation attacks with ever decreasing efficiency beyond just a few units as you added extra units into the equation.
Do you have any source for that or is it just internet hearsay? Considering an S-400 battalion is designed to operate with a minimum of 8 launchers/32 missiles but can operate with up to 72 launchers/384 missiles it's unlikely it would lose effectiveness just with a few units in the system (I.E the standard config), and even if it were true how would anyone (outside of Russia at least) even know considering the S-500 is still in development and the S-400 hasn't been used in combat yet.
Russia have actually publicly stated that they are willing to sell the S-400 to any credible buyer including the United States, so if the USA actually wanted one all they need to do is pick up the phone.
Lol. Because they want to sell LNG to Europe they are trying to ban Europe (with the threat of sanctions) from buying it from anyone else.
The US really doesn't give a crap about sovereignty or free markets.
Can't believe they published that. What facts are in that fact sheet? It's just full of politics and arm twisting.
I also love how they use the word "plurality" (of countries oppose) instead of a "minority" (of countries oppose). One sounds much better even though they mean the same thing.
*cough*
If you watch Alex Joneses latest take he says this bombing was a compromise to the neo con warhawks et al to prevent a war. In other words a lot of people are baying for a war so Trump gave them this bombing instead. Believe this or not but it makes sense and they do have people on the inside telling them what's going on.
EDIT: I'm talking slightly different setups to what you are but essentially at the scales of defending a region rather than point installation they struggle with large scale attacks. I'm not just talking a couple of S-400 installations defending an airbase, etc.
Russia says a lot of things they know are unlikely to be put to the test but traditionally they've not been in a hurry for the US to acquire their hardware especially not in full domestic spec.
Last edited:
Yeah it's really hard to imagine why the US spent trillions developing the F-35 then doesn't want to have it fly in close proximity to S-400 hardware being sold by Russia, you know the primary system it's designed to defeat
Nobody is forcing the US to fly its planes around the ME
They'd be perfectly safe if they just flew them around the US or way out at sea 
Given the target then asking permission is rather dumb... and again Iran attacked the US, had done before and was planning further attacks.
You think that requires permission?
“Just Lol” in the words of mags
Perhaps Iraq should have done something about the Shia militia groups a while ago if they didn’t want this sort of thing.
If the US wants to risk being kicked out/asked to leave then that’s on them. If Iraq wants to kick them out then the manner in which they do that is on them too - they’d best keep those Shia militia away else the withdrawal could be rather violent and they’d be risking their country being carved up if the Sunni Arabs and/or Kurds want to split/have the US stay. Not to mention potentially more sectarian violence.
Last edited:
They were complying. Trump decided to renegade on the deal remember, not Iran. The main reason it’s a “rogue state” is because US politicians say it is.
And I assume you missed the bit where I pointed out that Iranians have been dying at the hands of the US and their proxies for years? Again remember that the US is trying to destroy Iran’s economy here... jus a continuation of the 50+ years of trying to bully Iran into doing what they want.
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.
Well said.
Yet after all that people will still insist that it’s all Iran’s fault and that it’s all a one sided assault by Iran.
It’s also worth pointing out that Iran has lost several generals in the last few years in Syria, most of the probably killed by proxies and weapons funded and/or supported by the US.
We have to separate our personal viewpoints of “right” and “wrong” and realize that much of what we* feel about them, they feel about us. They’re using the same justification for their actions as we* are about ours.
“Right” and “wrong” very much depend on where you stand (as shown by the examples by doodah above), and peace can only be achieved if we realize this.
*We largely being the US in this case.
Why can’t they indeed.
Now Iran have been attached directly by the US presumably you’re happy for Iran to respond against the US next?
The the US can justifiably retaliate against them, and then Iran, then the US...
Your argument t ones both ways, which is the problem with it.
It seems you’ve missed that sanctions aren’t a good justification for launching attacks.
Dpnald trump violates sovereign airspace to kill General planning to meet countries PM...
Nope, you’re deliberately conflating the attacker/belligerent here - the US has acted in response to actions from Iran.
Obvs Iran can try to respond to that response but that would be rather silly of them for obvious reasons.
You inhabit a strange world where Irans actions are a series of unprovoked attacks on the US.
And everything the US does is retaliation for unprovoked Iranian attacks.
It's a way of looking at things which stems from a belief that one side is always in the right and the other side is always in the wrong.
Do you feel that way about, say, the Troubles? Was one side continually launching unprovoked attacks the other side justly retaliating against unprovoked attacks?