US kills Iran's General Soleimani

Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2004
Posts
7,044
I am on the side of Western Democracy and free market capitalism, we have free speech, equality and opportunity. I believe we are right. You seem to be equating us fighting for that to Authoritarian oppressive regimes presiding over countries they have turned into **** holes. Of course every action the UK and US take isn't virtuous and without flaw, but the enemy has done far worse. Go watch some documentaries about the Taliban or ISIS then try and compare us to them, I just don't think you have a clue
No we don't :(
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Nah it’s viewpoints like yours - you’re completely missing the point that sanctions or presence in a neighbouring country aren’t justification for this.

The aggression here was from Iran, the response was from the US.

I take it you missed the comments where I pointed out that US proxies are directly killing Iranians soldiers and have been for years?

It’s the literal same thing you’re claiming is why the US has justification for killing an Iranian general. You just refuse to take your partisan glasses off and see it for what it is. Just because you think one side are the “good” guys doesn’t mean the other side don’t see them selves as the “good” guys too.

Iran are using the same justification the US are and can now justify direct action against US forces by the attack on an Iranian soldier by the US.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
You will have to refresh after posting using the media button as above as you won't see the embedded tweet at first.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
It's incorrect to accept them continuing illicit actions against ourselves and our allies by not doing anything on the basis that they're not developing nuclear weapons, that's just giving in to nuclear black mail. They need to act in good faith, stop funding groups who attack Israel, stop funding/arming groups who attack UK and US troops, if they do that then we won't attack members of their state who organise those activities. If they attempt to develop nuclear weapons then I'm certain the US with Trump in charge would not allow that to happen.

You forget that politics get in the way.

Perhaps if the US and Saudi stopped funding groups that were attacking Iranians and Iranian interests then Iran would consider stopping.

Of course Iran won’t do it until then, because that will mean countries like Saudi will gain the upper hand in the regional politic game, where influence is important.

The whole “game” is no different to what played out for decades between the Us and USSR in Africa and elsewhere during the 70s and 80s.

You can’t just expect one side to stop while the other carries on.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
I take it you missed the comments where I pointed out that US proxies are directly killing Iranians soldiers and have been for years?

conflating somewhat different scenarios though aren't we....

It’s the literal same thing you’re claiming is why the US has justification for killing an Iranian general. You just refuse to take your partisan glasses off and see it for what it is. Just because you think one side are the “good” guys doesn’t mean the other side don’t see them selves as the “good” guys too.

Never claimed they didn't - doesn't make it true though.

Iran are using the same justification the US are and can now justify direct action against US forces by the attack on an Iranian soldier by the US.

No they aren't and no it doesn't really work like that - the US acted in response to aggression from Iran... Iran, if they've got a death wish, can of course attempt to respond to that but they'd be pretty dumb to do so.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
LOL!:D


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.

Iran doesn’t hate the west though.

Iran has regional interests that it’s happy to protect militarily, and it certainly has trust issues with the west (who wouldn’t after they spent the last 50 years undermining them and recently renegaded on a deal, plus are arming several of you regional opponents.

They do seem to be quite happy to directly retaliate when they are attacked however. For some that seems to be considered “hating the west”.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Thanks


If this is correct about casualties it will really kick off into full scale war now

Not necessarily, but it will almost certainly get the promised response from the US. Hope they get a plenty high value targets - these **** have had it coming for a long time tbh... and it is about time they were affected directly by it.

Iran doesn’t hate the west though.

LOL you are funny at times - if by "Iran" you're talking about the regime then there are plenty in the current regime who do indeed hate the west.

If you're talking about ordinary Iranians then that is a different ball game - big young generation there who aren't too happy with the oppressive regime they live under.
 
Back
Top Bottom