So this guy who was responsible for 17% of the American deaths in Iraq, shouldn’t be dealt with?Originally Posted by striker42
So this guy who was responsible for 17% of the American deaths in Iraq, shouldn’t be dealt with?
Their people have the most western-like mindset. The government is still hardline that is looking to cause damage in the region.
Cuba is not an agitator. The population is small. In my opinion its not a relevant example.
Natural Immunity Croc
I'm not sure what other options were left for the US.
Iran attacked the US embassy in another country. The men responsible for that attack were found in that country. We killed those men.
Should we have let them go free?
Natural Immunity Croc
Ari Fleischer on TV telling us the Iranian people will greet us as liberators. That takes me back.
I'm not making any judgments on whether this was the right action or not. Just noting the gravity of what happened.
Bad news for the idea that this is gonna motivate the populace to rise up (Oct. 2019 Poll):
Not defending this dude, but I am not feeling comforted.General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian public figure among those tested, with eight in ten viewing him favorably.
...
Majorities are broadly supportive of the IRGC. Four in five say the IRGC’s activities in the Middle East have made Iran more secure—a view that has increased since May.
...
Over four in five express negative attitudes toward the United States—the highest level recorded in 13 years, including during the Iraq War. A clear majority now has the perception that the United States did not fulfill its JCPOA obligations even before the Trump administration.
This will not really the people to our side. External military threats cause people to rally around the flag.
If you're looking for reasons this serves the US' interests going forward, this man was the most irreplaceable man in Iran. It's a huge blow to their capabilities to manipulate the region.
But don't look for Iranians to praise us for this.
- Combating Terrorism Center, West Point (link)Without question, Soleimani is the most powerful general in the Middle East today; he is also one of Iran’s most popular living people, and has been repeatedly touted as a possible presidential candidate.
....
Yet this pious image has not stopped Soleimani from becoming a cult figure in his own country, as omnipresent on Iranian state television as he is in the Twitter feeds of his Shi`a militias.
Cool cool cool cool....
Last edited by Metaphysicist; 01-02-2020 at 11:12 PM.
It’s sad this guy was the cause of so many deaths of American soldiers and you guys are hesitant to got on board with celebrating his death.
Iran is the big dog on the block who is controlling the soldiers and chaos in Iraq and Syria. There’s no one that can help Iran out if they make a move.
First, it's my position to never celebrate the death of another person. I can see a death's necessity, but I will not celebrate it.
My concern is that this action will cist the lives of more US soldiers. If this guy dies of an aneurysm squeezing out a turd, no one sheds a tear. I'm just worried about Iran doing something stupid.
Hopefully this makes America and her troops safer. Just a lot of uncertainty right now.
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Cuba was very much a threat for many years. They aren't now because the Castros got older and only cared about staying in power not getting into a war with us. But look at it, in terms of we still have no diplomatic relations with them, etc. The embargo is still there. We allow their refugees in if they make it, etc. It was an absolutely stupid move by Trump to pull out when US companies were ready to invest billions there. In 10 years or less when Raul dies, we could have been a big influence on the next leader because Raul would be the last Castro to rule. There'd be a power vacuum, and if the economy was doing well, there would be a movement to get moderate leaders to work with the US in power.
As for Iran, Exactly the point. Their people want it. But not enough yet because we aren't supporting them enough in a way they'd see a difference in having us be their saving grace. Saddam was unpopular in Iraq yet we were very unpopular after the honeymoon phase ended and we're still there 17 years later.
If we didn't pull a dick move and back out of the nuclear agreement with them, they'd see more prosperity from trading with countries again that they couldn't with before, not just us. In a few years once their economy is really booming, the movement to elect more moderate government there will be even stronger to continue a working relationship with the west. People don't remember, but Rouhani was elected BECAUSE the people there wanted someone who would extend an olive branch to the West and work on something. And he and his foreign Minister did that and look what they got out of it. The deal was so lopsided in our favor and Trump still backed out because he rather listen to Saudi Arabia and Israel. Those two want to be the only influential powerhouses in the Middle East, so a prosperous Iran is a danger to them regardless if it's a hardline government or a moderate one.
Rouhani isn't stupid, and neither is most of his cabinet. Most of his cabinet have attended college in western countries in the US AND Western Europe. They've seen the benefits of strong economies and western culture. It would be much easier to oust the Ayatollah if the US looked like a friend waiting to help, rather then what Trump is doing which is instigate and instigate.
The right seems to be getting a boner for the killing of this official, but if it leads to another invasion, it's going to be just as bad as Iraq. The best hope was to come in and help if they wanted to overthrew and do it right. We invaded Iraq willingly, but if the Iranian citizens were ready to go full Hong Kong protesting, we'd have an excuse to help them oust the ayotollah. The problem is, invading them now and killing millions of innocents in the process is going to make the ones who are very pro-west hate us.
It's an absolute pipe dream that we can go to war with Iran and their people will welcome us with open arms.
Forever Fredi
This isn't a clear black and white issue.
You are one of the same posters that criticized Obama for wanting to pull out before "the mission" was over in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Obama was going to let the original timeline hold up, all we haerd from the right was the same non-sense of "this will make us less safer", "let the troops finish the job", "they're telling our enemies when we're leaving", etc.
Going to war with Iran is going to be WAY different than going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq. First and foremost, Afghanistan had no real government when we came in. The Taliban basically ran things, so when we came in, we were already a better option. When we invaded Iraq, Saddam's military mostly bent over. This isn't 1991, most of their army weren't going to die fighting for Saddam when Iraq had been very low key since Persian Gulf.
Iran has a stronger military, and would put up way more of a fight than fighting hte Taliban in Afghanistan and whatever Saddam loyalists left stayed in Iraq.
Iran has an actual government. We can kill ISIS and Al Qaeda guys anywhere, but they're not a real government and don't have state boundaries to adhere to. Iranian military for sure have plans to protect their airspace and boundaries. Far different in warfare than ISIS having sporadic and random hideout spots around hidden in every country.
Forever Fredi
This goes back to how incredibly stupid it was for Trump to back out of the nuclear agreement, when all of his advisors including Secretary of State Tillerson, told him Iran had been fully complying and that it would be not good to back out. Trump himself made no real justification for withdrawing from the agreement, but we know Israel and Saudi's played a big part in that decision. Because the man coddles and sucks up to both of them.
Iran's military worked in coordination with ours on some missions to take out Al Qaeda and ISIS. There was a bunch of Shiites from Iran who were helping take cities in Iraq back from ISIS and did the lifting for us without even asking. These are things Fox News doesn't report.
Trump supporters keep thinking these countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, are afraid of Trump because he talks a big game. Quite the opposite, they've literally used his stupidity to benefit themselves.
Then again, Trump supporters only seem to care about the temporary boner like this airstrike so they can use the "not benghazi" stuff so they can praise their daddy Don for looking tough.
Forever Fredi
Trump had to get Ukraine emails off the front page for a while.
Forever Fredi
I want to make sure I support the troops this time. Wanting them home and safe is apparently not supporting the troops.... so War, woooooooo, let's get some Americans killed woooooo!
You think this is a distraction. This is leading to "how dare you critisize the President during a War"! Maybe IMPOTUS will claim Iran hacked the 2020 elections and try and abuse some wartime Presidential powers.
Last edited by cajunrevenge; 01-03-2020 at 07:49 AM.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Wendy R. Sherman
@wendyrsherman
·
8h
A small but telling point. Pentagon statement speaks of
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The correct title is Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I don't think it's a distraction. There's no way Trump could have orchestrated the sequence of events necessary to have a shot at taking this guy out. An airstrike on a stationary target? Sure, that could be a distraction. You know where a military base or a weapons factory is at all times. The same is not true of an individual.
Think of everything that had to happen. We had to have intelligence assets either inside Iran or, more likely, inside this Iraqi paramilitary group tip us off. We likely have to have someone on the ground confirm his identity before the strike. We then have a brief window of opportunity when he's at a location we can strike with minimal collateral damage. This was an opportunistic strike, not something planned to distract.
Some of the other saber rattling with Iran might have that motive to distract, but I don't see that being the case here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
