US kills Iran's General Soleimani

FoxEye said:
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?
Click to expand...

Who started it in other words, it's your fault etc

I've only read to the 1950's when Britain wanted the majority share in the Anglo-Persian oil company but Iran refused telling them/us where to go. Then huge wave of sanctions came down on Iran after that tit for tat. The US embassy seige, the Lebanon base bombing, the downed Iranian airliner etc and now nukes.
 
dowie said:
It seems you’ve missed that sanctions aren’t a good justification for launching attacks.
Click to expand...

It seems you’ve missed the discussion of US proxies killing Iranians...

It’s been tit for tat for decades, the sanctions are just the “icing on the cake” after the US renegaded on a deal.
 
dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...


And you’re deliberately missing the point that Iran is reacting in response to the US.

Neither side is innocent in all this. Which is the point. Both sides are justifying their actions because of the actions of the other side, both using the same logic you yourself are displaying.

Unfortunately it’s viewpoints like yours that are causing this mess in the first place.
 
Nasher said:
Iran is going to do something stupid and the US will cripple their forces from the air. Iran won't be able to stop them, because for all their threats and bragging they are actually decades behind in capability.
Click to expand...
How did Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam work out for them?
 
IronWarrior said:
These assumptions are wrong on their military capabilities, Iran missile defence is the biggest in the region with many modern toys that are decent enough to knock american aircraft down.

The landscape of the country also doesn't help, it's a fortress of mountains where they can hide their weapons pretty easy and striking them from the air isn't as easy as you think it is.

USAF is going to have a bloody time, not that they won't complete the job, but it's not going to be Iraq 2.
Click to expand...

Oh, I entirely agree regarding a "Boots on Ground" action. Iran is rugged and mountainous, boots on ground would (Like NK!) be very hard. But as pointed out elsewhere. Dictatorships for all their hardware capabilities, tend to lose command structure one the leadership has been neutralised.

On paper, Iraq had pretty good hardware too, and on occasion put up a pretty damn good resistance. But it all rapidly fell apart once the senior command and communication structure was disrupted.

(I was surprised they didn't blow the dam and flood out the US forces once they had taken the airport actually, but that is another story)

But none of that would prevent Iran from being destroyed from the air, and since the US has spent the last 50 years spending effectively unlimited resources developing the best stealth technology on the planet, I have no doubt that their latest stuff will be hard to shoot down with anything other than line of sight Mk1 Eyeball and a load of luck.
 
jamoor said:
How did Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam work out for them?
Click to expand...

In many ways, surprisingly well from a military perspective.

The failures were mostly political. In all three examples the Military were severely restricted in their operations by the politicians.

Vietnam in particular where the ability to carry out effective "Offensive" actions was virtually prohibited and the failure to make obvious progress as a result of this restriction meant that the war rapidly lost public support back home. The irony was that the US packed up and went home just as they started to actually win (Despite the restricted rules of engagement) It was like the Allies giving up and going home immediately after crushing the Germans in the Ardennes Counteroffensive. Extraordinary really. No wonder Nam is such a sore point with the US military. :/
 
Dis86 said:
But you didn't present it as speculation. You presented it as a statement.
Click to expand...
No I did not.

Here's my post. I think it's quite clear I was speculating, how you could suggest otherwise I find quite astonishing. Which part of (and I'll quote myself) "I'll stick my neck out and suggest..." do you not understand? I do not present anything as fact, it's quite clear it's my opinion.
 
MartinPrince said:
It is nothing to do with being clear or people not following you, you were just simply wrong, mistaken, and in error as already pointed out here.
Click to expand...
This will be the last time I say this, but I stand by my original post. It was speculation on my part, I'm happy to stand by that. Not quite sure how I can be judged to be wrong on something which I have speculated might happen, but has not happened yet!

MartinPrince said:
As you seem the intransigent type I won't be responding to you again as I'm pretty sure it is clear to you where you went wrong, even if you won't admit it.
Click to expand...
I think you're hanging on to your grammar Nazi analysis of my post to support your rather disingenous claim. You'll note that I have completely ignored you on that point (it brings nothing to the debate whatsoever) and I wll continue to do so.
 
Gents you do realise this is a diversion from the Turkish invasion of Libya yes? On the back of Turkey yesterday announcing that would be closing Bosporus strait, completely dismantling the Treaty of Montreux, on the back of having dismantle the Treaty of Lausanne since October.
 
FoxEye said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

He was talking about Russia selling the S-400 to European allies, and there are more countries than just the US itself flying the F-35.

Non-intervention in the Middle East isn't a viable policy for America or the West. We're reliant on buying oil, every person in the country is reliant on this to get food on our shelves even if we don't own a car. If we have no presence in the Middle East things it doesn't become peaceful, it becomes worse. Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran would all fight amongst themselves, it would disrupt global oil supplies, Russia and China would step in to fill the gap in power - this isn't an improvement over the status quo.
 
A2Z said:
The ME is basically Terrorism Central
Click to expand...

The big question you need to ask yourself, is why that is.

Do you think war with Iran will help to stop prevent terrorism in future, or help breed a whole new generation of young Iranians hell bent on revenge as they lost their home, their parents and their whole livelihood in a US airstrike...
 
Orionaut said:
In many ways, surprisingly well from a military perspective.

The failures were mostly political. In all three examples the Military were severely restricted in their operations by the politicians.

Vietnam in particular where the ability to carry out effective "Offensive" actions was virtually prohibited and the failure to make obvious progress as a result of this restriction meant that the war rapidly lost public support back home. The irony was that the US packed up and went home just as they started to actually win (Despite the restricted rules of engagement) It was like the Allies giving up and going home immediately after crushing the Germans in the Ardennes Counteroffensive. Extraordinary really. No wonder Nam is such a sore point with the US military. :/
Click to expand...

They still went home in the end, it just smacks of all the gear no idea.
 
Roar87 said:
They achieved their strategic objective which was ultimately to stem the spread of Communism in South East Asia, it wasn't to conquer and occupy Vietnam
Click to expand...
The Vietnam war was a total loss for the US. A humiliating defeat.

To spin that as a strategic success is odd.
 
So it sounds like Iran is planning a response, unsurprisingly since it can't appear weak. The US will respond in kind. Who knows what any of this nonsense will achieve.
 
robgmun said:
It was, but the objective was successful, just was the loss justifiable? Some say yes, others will say no
Click to expand...
Well it showed the whole world that the US could be defeated militarily.

Maybe that's the kind of strategic success Trump is going for :p
 
Over 50,000 military casualties from a side that had an overwhelming military and technical advantage, to me is a loss but each to their own.....:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom