US kills Iran's General Soleimani

[Amp34]

I don't know too much about it actually, i know i've just read that Iran were heavily involved in buying goods from the Nazi's when other countries cut off ties.
If i go have a read now, i'm pretty certain its not like you are making out.

Edit.



hmmm

Looks very much like Iran was neutral, but decided to trade heavily with Germany because they didn't have the historic imperial aspirations of Britain and Russia (both having occupied Iranian soil after WW1 and helped install the then Shah in power). They didn't support Germanys superiority aim however, and helped a lot of Jews.

Interesting ly too

Reza Shah declared Iran neutral at the start of World War II. He feared both Soviet and British ambitions in his country and despite the benefits of economic relations with Germany, he considered Germany to be too committed to its program of race-based expansion and ideology. Neither side had Iran’s best interests in mind. In the wake of dramatic German victories against the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, both the British and Soviet governments occupied southern and northern Iran respectively, using Reza Shah’s refusal to expel German nationals as an excuse, but in fact out of concern that a successful German drive into the Caucasus would not stop at the Iranian border and that continued Iranian neutrality would inhibit the transit of supplies from British India to Egypt and British supply routes to the Soviet Union. Allied intentions in Iran were also to protect British-controlled oil fields, to direct military supplies to the Soviet Union using the Trans-Iranian Railroad (the major railway linking Tehran with the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea), and to put a stop to German intelligence operations in Iran.

On September 11, 1941, British Envoy Sir Reader S. Bullard met with Iran’s Prime Minister, Mohammad-Ali Furuqi, to demand the immediate removal of Reza Shah in favor of his son, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, who was known to be pro-British. Five days later, on September 16, Reza Shah abdicated and went into exile, leaving his son as Shah. Reza Shah died in Johannesburg, South Africa, on July 26, 1944.

In January 1942, Iran, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain signed a Tripartite Treaty of Alliance. In this agreement, the Allies recognized Iranian territorial integrity, sovereignty, and political independence. They also pledged to protect the Iranian economy from the effects of the war. Most importantly, they promised to withdraw from Iranian territory within six months of the end of the war. By the spring of 1942, Iran had cut off all relations with the Axis Powers and had expelled all of their nationals residing in Iran.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/iran-during-world-war-ii

So after help enact a second coup Iran signed a treaty that reduced the amount of trade with German.

 

[FoxEye]

You talk as if we were the only people that did sh*tty stuff to other people, the whole world was like that.

Stop going back 200 years, it has no relevance at all, and clearly the current young people of Hong Kong don't consider the opium wars any part of their history, because it isn't what they experienced. So why are you talking about it, if they don't even consider it?

I talk about the UK historically screwing foreign lands over.

I don't say we the 21st century Brits are guilty of those historical failings. Of course not.

But if we make the same mistakes we are doubly at fault. Firstly for continuing to screw over and interfere in foreign lands. Secondly for not learning from our past mistakes. And our past is littered with mistakes and lessons to learn. We behaved very poorly to multiple countries. We screwed India and Pakistan something chronic.

We can't just go on endlessly starting conflicts, inciting regime change, stirring things, invading places, sticking our oar in where it's not wanted.

We have to learn to stop interfering because when we do we cause chaos that lasts for generations. And we cause huge resentment and anti-western feeling in all these ME countries, that won't be quickly forgotten.

It's too late and we've caused too much damage to ever know how that region would be had we left them alone. But we can stop continually meddling and doing more harm today.

 

[Amp34]

The US responded to an attack on their embassy and their bases...

The warmongers here are Iran.

Which were in part a retaliation for the US putting massive sanctions on Iran, which were in part due to historic actions by Iran, which were in part due to historic actions by the US. It's a rabbit hole of accusations and counter accusations. Neither side is good or bad in this. Unfortunately, as shown in the quote above, western governments have been interfering with Iran for almost a century. Obama's/Europes nuclear deal was supposed to be the start of something new, but unfortunately Trump managed to destroy all that.

 

[Rroff]

Senator Chuck Schumer: "President Trump seems hell bent on starting another endless war in the Middle East. He does not have the authority to do so."

Problem is if Iran escalates and war is on I don't think authority to do so or not is going to matter - potentially Trump has already set things in motion that will cross that line whether Congress likes it or not.

 

[ubersonic]

The US responded to an attack on their embassy and their bases...

That's a huge over-exaggeration, I'll give you the benefit and assume you're just repeating what you heard without realising it was loaded, but for reference:

1. The demonstrators threw stones at the embassy and broke down a gate leading to a courtyard before being dispersed with tear gas and pushed back, it was hardly the super deadly/shocking attack some media sources try to portray it as, hell there was a worse one at the same embassy in 2019. It doesn't even rank in the top ten worst embassy attacks of the past five years. I'm not saying it's fine/normal but it isn't that uncommon for an embassy to see public anger directed at it, what is abnormal is the completely disproportionate US response.
2. It wasn't a US base it was an Iraqi base, most of the casualties were Iraqi, the American guy killed was a private contractor working for the Iraqis.

*EDIT*

Trump's just gone full trump >.>

President Donald Trump threatened Sunday to slap sanctions on Iraq after its parliament passed a resolution calling for the government to expel foreign troops from the country.

Tensions in the Middle East spiraled last week after Trump called for a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad that killed a top Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani.


Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, the U.S. president said: “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”

“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”

He added that “If there’s any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate, we are going to put sanctions on Iraq, very big sanctions on Iraq.”

 

[dowie]

Which were in part a retaliation for the US putting massive sanctions on Iran, which were in part due to historic actions by Iran, which were in part due to historic actions by the US. It's a rabbit hole of accusations and counter accusations. Neither side is good or bad in this. Unfortunately, as shown in the quote above, western governments have been interfering with Iran for almost a century. Obama's/Europes nuclear deal was supposed to be the start of something new, but unfortunately Trump managed to destroy all that.

Putting sanctions on a country isn’t a reasonable reason for launching proxy attacks!

 

[dowie]

That's a huge over-exaggeration

No it isn’t and it’s hardly an isolated incident either, Iran and that guy in particular have been instrumental in facilitating such attacks for years...

Given your nonsense claims when the ship was seized off Gibraltar in another thread it isn’t supprising to see you jumping in again here.

 

[FoxEye]

So Trump has basically said they aren't leaving even if Iraq asks them to leave. What a peace-loving guy he is.

 

[ianh]

1. The demonstrators threw stones at the embassy and broke down a gate leading to a courtyard before being dispersed with tear gas and pushed back, it was hardly the super deadly/shocking attack some media sources try to portray it as, hell there was a worse one at the same embassy in 2019. It doesn't even rank in the top ten worst embassy attacks of the past five years. I'm not saying it's fine/normal but it isn't that uncommon for an embassy to see public anger directed at it, what is abnormal is the completely disproportionate US response.

1. Nope - the numerous pictures of burned out buildings printed by Vice magazine (a left leaning publisher) show all the damage along with other articles with quotes from those actually there saying "we're amazed no-one died".

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...hdad-after-2-day-siege-by-iran-backed-militia

1. It wasn't a US base it was an Iraqi base, most of the casualties were Iraqi, the American guy killed was a private contractor working for the Iraqis.

2. Still Nope - It's an Iraqi base but fully manned by US troops with just a few Iraqi Federal Police and Counter-Terrorism Service troops, just like "RAF Lakenheath" in the UK is a UK base but is fully manned by the USAF with a few RAF personnel. Also, while the US citizen killed was contractor (why does that make a difference) several US troops were also injured in the same attack and the numerous Iraqi "causalities" you mentioned was just a single Iraqi injured - all reported by left leaning CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/27/politics/iraq-rocket-attack-contractor-killed/index.html

Oh and where did the 30+ brand new new 107mm rockets involved come from, seen as Iraq doesn't use them any more? Could it be the same place that supplied the Shia militias in Basrah with them from 2003-2009 when they were being fired at British troops and those that didn't go off (or were discovered before being fired? Maybe the left leaning Guardian knows who supplied them all the way back in 2007 when they reported on it -

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/19/iraq-iran

I know your world view is substantially different to my own, so I've tried to use left leaning publishers to prevent any "right leaning bias" I may have, as actually being on the receiving end of the 107mm "help" the Iranian Government has been giving to the Shia militias through-out Iraq can skew your leanings.

 

[ubersonic]

1. Nope - the numerous pictures of burned out buildings printed by Vice magazine (a left leaning publisher) show all the damage

I'll be perfectly honest, I hadn't seen any of that as the use of petrol bombs wasn't reported in the UK media. The BBC just covered the demonstrators throwing stones, smashing windows, breaking down a gate to a courtyard and attempting (and failing) to get into the embassy.

That definitely raises the severity of the incident, however the severity of the damage only puts it on par with the last attack on the embassy in 2019, and still way behind many other incidents at embassy in the past few years. It in no way justifies the disproportional response by the Trump administration.

2. Still Nope - It's an Iraqi base but fully manned by US troops with just a few Iraqi Federal Police and Counter-Terrorism Service troops, just like "RAF Lakenheath" in the UK is a UK base but is fully manned by the USAF with a few RAF personnel.

With respect, I didn't say it wasn't, I was simply replying to the guy who claimed it was a US base by pointing out it was an Iraqi base where US troops were also stationed.

 

[Amp34]

Putting sanctions on a country isn’t a reasonable reason for launching proxy attacks!

When you put a country in a corner they tend to “bite”, especially when the sanctions are unilateral and designed to effect regime change.

Besides, as I said it’s only in part due to that. The US have been killing Iranians for several years in places like Syria (Iranians invited by the government) and funding proxy fighters that have killed Iranians.

Neither side has clean hands in the affair.

I’m sure if the Iranians launched a targeted strike on a US general or senior official there would still be people claiming it was an unprovoked attach even now.

 

[Grim5]

He didn’t before either, not sure what relevance that has to the thread... terrorist’s in East Africa? No ****

All of north africa, east and part of central is a hotbed for terrorism

 

[Kronos]

And the threats from Trump just keep on coming, he threatens to attack Iranian cultural sites which is illegal under international law, but now he is threatening Iraq with sanctions which will make the ones against Iran seem pale by comparison.
Will no one stand up to hideous bully, obviously not our government as we need a big trade agreement which means we must continue to be a poodle.

 

[Abraxaz1]

And the threats from Trump just keep on coming, he threatens to attack Iranian cultural sites which is illegal under international law, but now he is threatening Iraq with sanctions which will make the ones against Iran seem pale by comparison.
Will no one stand up to hideous bully, obviously not our government as we need a big trade agreement which means we must continue to be a poodle.

Slight issue with that, Iran isn't part of the Hague convention. So the niceties of that dont have to be followed.

Examples are;
Use of agent orange in Vietnam
Use of white phosphorus in iraq and Afghanistan
Cluster bombs against ISIS by both russia and usa.

If the usa wanted to mess iran up, they'd just target their electrical grid.
A few well placed tomahawks and the country would be back to the stone age.

I bet Israel are loving this, their main enemy and best ally at each others throats

 

[HEADRAT]

Iran are against a rock and a hard place, if they retaliate "too hard" against USA directly rather some kinda "proxy" Trump will just give it to them "both barrels". It really is David vs Goliath, the USA could return Iran to the stone age in a few hours.

While this would surely lead to massive instability in the region and a massive spike in terror attacks in the West and I have the distinct feeling that Trump just doesn't give a ****

 

[dowie]

When you put a country in a corner they tend to “bite”, especially when the sanctions are unilateral and designed to effect regime change.

Not necessarily - they can also comply... no one is forcing them to be a rogue state.

Again sanctions aren’t a justification for proxy attacks.

Neither side has clean hands in the affair.

No one claimed otherwise - though in this case Iran has been carrying out proxy attacks without much response and finally they’ve had one - a rather clinical one directed at the people behind these attacks and potential future ones.

 

[dowie]

Iran are against a rock and a hard place, if they retaliate "too hard" against USA directly rather some kinda "proxy" Trump will just give it to them "both barrels".

Good, they need to have some consequences for their actions.

If they want to carry on directing proxy attacks then they can pay a price and if Trump is willing to make that a hefty one then... well it could go either way really but they’re really going to have some serious costs for their schenanegans.

Say a couple of US soldiers get killed in more schenanegans by Iran tomorrow... well dozens of Iranians die in multiple strikes launched in direct response at key infrastructure. Hopefully with some big, partly symbolic target, right in the middle of Tehran.

It’s risky but then again the rules have changed for a while, Russia has run rings around the west with proxy wars, Iran has been prolific too - when they’re actively targeting US assets then the US has the right to respond.

As much as Mango is generally a disaster for the US this sort of situation is where he is semi useful - his perceived randomness/impulsiveness presents a big risk for Iran. They love a bit of bluster and ranting about how they’ll destroy Westeen forces etc... but usually know the US won’t go so far as to directly attack them and the EU countries will get upset and want to reign in any hawkishness from the US etc... this time though the orange clown has acted and seems quite up for responding again... how far he’ll go - **** knows but he’s up for escalation and has picked an arbitrarly symbolic number of targets - what that translates into in terms of scale is unknown but it’s likely not pretty and what he counts as a trigger for it isn’t known either. They ought to be very nervous right now as frankly Mango doesn’t give a **** about the feelings of allies etc... if he has to pull the trigger and escalate.

 

[robgmun]

I'm always curious as to why these middle-eastern countries come out with this ridiculous rhetoric that they must know they cannot back up. It happened with Iraq with comical Ali and now the Iranian regime

 

[robgmun]

Iran are against a rock and a hard place,

I see what you just did there :

 

[Panos]

Um...until the British moved in they were Nazi Germany's top trading partner.

You forgot Sweden & Turkey somehow.........