US kills Iran's General Soleimani

[dowie]

This is a pretty odd take on things.

not particularly - IMO the head in the sand, lets do nothing approach seems rather odd.

Yes tensions were still there, but I never said they werent. They have increased a lot due to Trump's actions though.

They hated the great satan before and they still hate the great satan now... don't see a change re: the tensions between Iran and the US tbh...

The change is in the rules of the game and motivations - they now have more direct consequences to the game they've been playing for the past couple of decades and they're trapped in an awkward dilemma of wanting to respond to save face but also knowing they'll get their asses kicked if they do... and they'll also get their asses kicked if they carry on with the attacks as they have been doing until now.

Does that mean I want Trump to start a full on war there - no of course not. Does it mean I like Trump or trust his judgement on this stuff - LOL no, not at all - quite the opposite , he's a useful idiot here - someone who can be guided to take the risk and make a bold move because he likes to be seen doing this but I really hope the relevant high ranking national security staff in the US have the potential responses planned out carefully and don't let him get carried away.

Do I think a surgical strike and a promise of direct action in repose to any further silliness from Iran is justifiable and an approach that is worth taking - yes, potentially - albeit it needs to be done in a controlled way with a lot of thought about the consequences of escalating too far. It is risky, obviously and personally I think giving them a bloody nose re: the stated 52 targets etc.. if they make another move is worthwhile too as would be further action against them and their facilities if it escalates a bit or shipping is affected by them.

As I said earlier, the nuclear deal was a good way to get off on the right foot and diffuse tensions slowly and build trust.

And as I said earlier it's got naff all to do with these proxy attacks which carried on right the way through that nuclear deal and which arguably they weren't fans of and would have been seeking to undermine regardless.

 

[Jono8]

And as I said earlier it's got naff all to do with these proxy attacks which carried on right the way through that nuclear deal and which arguably they weren't fans of and would have been seeking to undermine regardless.

So do you disagree with having a nuclear deal with Iran then?

 

[Trusty]

https://thesoufancenter.org/research/irans-playbook-deconstructing-tehrans-regional-strategy/

Its worth having a scroll through this to understand things better.

 

[Rroff]

Not checked if old videos, etc. and no idea if it is normal movement (recruits often get moved this way, etc.) and I've seen it before myself on a much smaller scale but videos doing the rounds of some fairly hefty amount of troops being moved through commercial airports in the US seemingly being flown out to the ME.

 

[AhhBisto]

The guys taking more lives in the afterlife, 50 crushed to death as Soleimani funeral was starting...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51015795

 

[kinetic747]

Trump has spent the last 3 years undermining his own intelligence agencies. It's a bit rich for him to now say they have credible intelligence that warranted the assassination.

 

[Nasher]

This guy has been on the radar for a long time I think. He is (was) the leader if a group which is basically a state backed terrorist organisation.

Iranians seem to be mourning one of the people who was oppressing them. I guess it's how thing work in that part of the world though.

 

[jsmoke]

Trump has spent the last 3 years undermining his own intelligence agencies. It's a bit rich for him to now say they have credible intelligence that warranted the assassination.

Maybe because he's spent the last few years installing his own people into the intelligence agencies?

 

[dowie]

So do you disagree with having a nuclear deal with Iran then?

Nope and I'm not sure why you keep on banging on about it tbh...?

 

[jsmoke]

This guy has been on the radar for a long time I think. He is (was) the leader if a group which is basically a state backed terrorist organisation.

Iranians seem to be mourning one of the people who was oppressing them. I guess it's how thing work in that part of the world though.

They've turned him into an idol, worshipping him hence the big reaction.

 

[i know nothing]

No, but neither does whataboutism...

LOL!

I would still argue that killing a top general of a sovereign country is vastly worse in relation to those things, because it is very easy to be seen as a completely direct attack on their country (because it is).

Well let's examine that for a minute. An Iranian General in the company of militia in a foreign country who has been stirring the ****. Nobody doubts/denies that. If he isn't a legitimate target for the U.S.A. then I dont know who is.

An attack on Al Queida/Obama is an attack on people who already vehemently hate the west.

An attack on the Iranian General is an attack on someone who hates the West and represents a country that hates the West, so no difference there.

An attack on a top Iranian official is very likely to turn vastly more people in Iran and in that region against the USA/the west.

Possibly yes, but so what? We've already establised they hate the West, they are by their own admission sworn enemies, let's not pretend that the relationship will get worse, it was already at rock bottom well before this.

 

[Greebo]

You have a strange way of showing love by spouting hate for your orange leader.

I just go there to laugh and blindly loyal love boys like you

 

[kinetic747]

Maybe because he's spent the last few years installing his own people into the intelligence agencies?

That's what's really worrying.

 

[Nasher]

LOL!


Well let's examine that for a minute. An Iranian General in the company of militia in a foreign country who has been stirring the ****. Nobody doubts/denies that. If he isn't a legitimate target for the U.S.A. then I dont know who is.


An attack on the Iranian General is an attack on someone who hates the West and represents a country that hates the West, so no difference there.


Possibly yes, but so what? We've already establised they hate the West, they are by their own admission sworn enemies, let's not pretend that the relationship will get worse, it was already at rock bottom well before this.

There is that. Why should we give a **** if they hate us all anyway. If it comes to war the US will steamroll them, so whatever.

 

[Jono8]

Nope and I'm not sure why you keep on banging on about it tbh...?

Because you seem to support this latest action, which well and truly kills any chance of there being another nuclear deal for a very long time, if ever (at least in our life times).

Once again, you try to sort of play both sides without ever committing to either, and will argue until you are blue in the face that you can, often leading to your arguments making no logical sense.

Have some conviction in your arguments on here, otherwise we are all doomed to go round and round in circles like we always do.

 

[Jono8]

LOL!


Well let's examine that for a minute. An Iranian General in the company of militia in a foreign country who has been stirring the ****. Nobody doubts/denies that. If he isn't a legitimate target for the U.S.A. then I dont know who is.


An attack on the Iranian General is an attack on someone who hates the West and represents a country that hates the West, so no difference there.


Possibly yes, but so what? We've already establised they hate the West, they are by their own admission sworn enemies, let's not pretend that the relationship will get worse, it was already at rock bottom well before this.

I'm sorry if you cannot appreciate the difference. It is quite obviously a vastly different scenario though.

 

[dowie]

Because you seem to support this latest action, which well and truly kills any chance of there being another nuclear deal for a very long time.

Once again, you try to play both sides, and will argue until you are blue in the face that you can, often leading to your arguments making no logical sense.

Have some conviction in your arguments on here, otherwise we are all doomed to go round and round in circles like we always do.

I've got plenty of conviction in my arguments. Not sure what your point is here but you'd be better off asking rather than projecting if you want my views. That I'd ideally support a nuclear deal and that I support this action isn't logically inconsistent - that requires you to make further assumptions - i.e argue against some position you've made up yourself.

I mean, without wanting to spoon feed you - it is possible to support both but for one to have a set back because of the need or desire to react to another issue.

You're mostly doomed to go around in circles if you try to argue against some position you've made up for me or act disingenuously when reading replies to things that I clarify and then pretending I didn't and carrying on as though my position is whatever you've constructed for me, again.

 

[Jono8]

I mean, without wanting to spoon feed you - it is possible to support both but for one to have to go because of the need to react to another issue.

Ok, then. So your view is that from the time of the proxy attack on the US embassy, a nuclear deal was no longer possible, and instead it was high time the USA just thought "**** it" and assassinated a top Iranian official/general. Is that correct?

I will reiterate before you possibly try and swerve answering - you can't have both in this scenario (unless you genuinely believe a nuclear deal is still possible in the near future after what the USA have done...and if so, well..).

 

[dowie]

Ok, then. So your view is that from the time of the proxy attack on the US embassy, a nuclear deal was no longer possible, and instead it was high time the USA just thought "**** it" and assassinated a top Iranian official/general. Is that correct?

I'm not really sure what relevance a nuclear deal has with regards to this tbh... the US had already withdrawn from the nuclear deal before this attack.

As for you trying to make up views for me - I've already commented on that. I get that it is easier if you can just argue against something you've made up yourself but it isn't too honest.

 

[Jono8]

I'm not really sure what relevance a nuclear deal has with regards to this tbh... the US had already withdrawn from the nuclear deal before this attack.

As for you trying to make up views for me - I've already commented on that.

Lol. This was almost word for word what i predicted you would write

"I'm not sure what relevance what we are talking about has to what we are talking about.."...!