Quantcast
Iranian General Killed by US Attack

Forums - Politics Discussion - Iranian General Killed by US Attack

Wyrdness said:
Darwinianevolution said:

Why hasn't the US invaded before? Why would they? The US doesn't need to invade a country to fight terrorism. They didn't need to invade Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden, and likewise, the fact that terrorism continued after Irak and Afganistan meant that invading is not an universal, nor foolproof, solution. Measured use of force is needed in both diplomacy and military affairs. Solemini was a terrorist whose criminal acts could be traced back years ago (the attack of the israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 comes to mind, though there might be earlier attacks). The US had recognized his involvement in aiding local terrorist cells in Irak, and it was in a position to get to him within allied territory. This situation didn't need an invasion. If by taking down the terrorist you ended one of the most prominent heads of terrorism in the area and you send a message to Iran (who had started this whole affair with the attack to the embassy in Irak), why would you choose an invasion that would cost so much in lives, money and national and international image?

They didn't invade Pakistan instead they invaded Afghanistan and they're still fighting 18 years on when they went looking for Bin Laden if he is actually dead they funny enough neglected to use bombs like they did in Iraq nor was Bin Laden a Pakistani general, why would you choose an invasion? Well you tell us as yin your post you alluded to Iran's actions leading to an invasion yet going by the claims of both you and some media outlets on their general's activities if true then an invasion is warranted which tells me the reason one hasn't taken place is one of the two reason I highlighted.

US' actions have still damaged their image, jeopardize their position in the Middle East, has allies distancing themselves, run the risk of Iraq ejecting US troops not only losing a strategic position in the region but the country being taken by Iran which would put the Saudis the US suppliers of oil in a volatile position.

Measured response is key in this. If Iran had responded by killing american personnel in international soil, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had pushed for terrorist attacks and had claimed their involvement in them, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had threatened in a serious way the oil routes of the area, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. As it is, the whole deal has ended with Iran throwing missiles in such a way not a single american has turned out dead or wounded. If both Iran and the US are happy to let things as they are now (the US dealt with one of the most dangerous terrorists out there and sent a message to Iran, and Iran tried to save face by throwing missiles to the US bases in a way that supposedly made the regime look "strong" in front of its population and didn't led to immediate war) then that's that. No need for invasion, no need for war.

And about those later points, this doesn't weaken the US position in the Middle East at all. If anything it strengthens it. The western allies of the US know about the threat of terrorism, Irak is not going to eject US troops (both because of its own instability and because they also are at odds with Iran), and if Iran ever actually went ahead with the war threats, both US and Saudi Arabia would gladly ally together to take it down.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Around the Network
Darwinianevolution said:

Measured response is key in this. If Iran had responded by killing american personnel in international soil, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had pushed for terrorist attacks and had claimed their involvement in them, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had threatened in a serious way the oil routes of the area, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. As it is, the whole deal has ended with Iran throwing missiles in such a way not a single american has turned out dead or wounded. If both Iran and the US are happy to let things as they are now (the US dealt with one of the most dangerous terrorists out there and sent a message to Iran, and Iran tried to save face by throwing missiles to the US bases in a way that supposedly made the regime look "strong" in front of its population and didn't led to immediate war) then that's that. No need for invasion, no need for war.

And about those later points, this doesn't weaken the US position in the Middle East at all. If anything it strengthens it. The western allies of the US know about the threat of terrorism, Irak is not going to eject US troops (both because of its own instability and because they also are at odds with Iran), and if Iran ever actually went ahead with the war threats, both US and Saudi Arabia would gladly ally together to take it down.

Yet you say their general did all these things including killing Americans on foreign soil which you're saying calls for an invasion yet contradict yourself saying a measured response is needed for Iran so which is it mate as a General is part of the country. Just yesterday people like yourself were saying they won't do anything now today it's "It's a move to save face", you know why Iran attacked those bases? To call Trump's bluff he issued threats going on about if any US asset is attacked and guess what 2 were attacked that was the whole point to call out the US and say well I did it so what now. Iraq has already told US to remove their troops from their country right now the US is refusing to leave this flat out contradicts your outlook in fact everything in objective reality is contradicting your view here.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's on you for assuming I don't.  You've spent this entire time on a false presumption that you made because you jumped to conclusions instead of recognizing what is being stated.

My whole point for this thread and everything I've talked about is escalation and the reduction of diplomatic options. 

I'll sum it up for you because it seems you need it.



"Things are bad in the Middle East.  Crap, we just made it a whole lot worse."

Done. 

Thank you for that summary. Now allow me a summary of my own:

Things have ALWAYS been as bad as they can get, war, violence, murder, genocide.

America kills an Iranian General

Iran: How dare they, let's change peace and love into hatred and war... Wait a second, it's been war and hatred all the time so we are not changing anything, it's just business as usual. But hey some people on forums will have the illusion that it was all peace and love before that general got killed so they will have the illusion that it's war now where it was peace before so for their sake (cause we don't fool people capable of critical thinking) let's say that things are bad now as opposed to things being good just before the general's death and let's go to what we were going to go ANYWAY which is conflict with enemies cause that's what we humans are good at. The general's death, just an excuse, a pretext. The path is war, it's ALWAYS war in case some people is incapable of noticing.

You put little focus on the bolded.

If the Iranian military killed important people on American ground how would you think America would retaliate?What an insane risk to do an attack like this.Ofcourse things have been bad but that is no excuse for what happened,it is sad the international court for humanitary crimes is in the pocket of America.

Brand possible threats of your country as terrorist an let them be killed and imagine this same tactic being used on America,how many offcicials would be branded terrorist? (A lot)



Wyrdness said:
Darwinianevolution said:

Measured response is key in this. If Iran had responded by killing american personnel in international soil, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had pushed for terrorist attacks and had claimed their involvement in them, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had threatened in a serious way the oil routes of the area, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. As it is, the whole deal has ended with Iran throwing missiles in such a way not a single american has turned out dead or wounded. If both Iran and the US are happy to let things as they are now (the US dealt with one of the most dangerous terrorists out there and sent a message to Iran, and Iran tried to save face by throwing missiles to the US bases in a way that supposedly made the regime look "strong" in front of its population and didn't led to immediate war) then that's that. No need for invasion, no need for war.

And about those later points, this doesn't weaken the US position in the Middle East at all. If anything it strengthens it. The western allies of the US know about the threat of terrorism, Irak is not going to eject US troops (both because of its own instability and because they also are at odds with Iran), and if Iran ever actually went ahead with the war threats, both US and Saudi Arabia would gladly ally together to take it down.

Yet you say their general did all these things including killing Americans on foreign soil which you're saying calls for an invasion yet contradict yourself saying a measured response is needed for Iran so which is it mate as a General is part of the country. Just yesterday people like yourself were saying they won't do anything now today it's "It's a move to save face", you know why Iran attacked those bases? To call Trump's bluff he issued threats going on about if any US asset is attacked and guess what 2 were attacked that was the whole point to call out the US and say well I did it so what now. Iraq has already told US to remove their troops from their country right now the US is refusing to leave this flat out contradicts your outlook in fact everything in objective reality is contradicting your view here.

The US does not want war at any costs. No nation does. War is a last resort, and it would only do it if it is really be pushed into it. That doesn't mean they won't use the threat of it as a deterrent. The United States does not want another conflict, they'd rather take out the elements that are a threat to it directly, thus the drone attack instead of an invasion. Iran does not want war, they'd rather look "strong" in front of their population without risking the regime's existence in a war against the US. If the US knew that Solemini's death would have 100% caused a war with Iran, do you think they'd still had gone through with it? The same with Iran, if they knew the missile launches would've started a war with the US 100% guaranteed, would they have launched them? Both countries threatened each other with war, but neither one really wants it. And they are perfectly capable of saying the other's actions are acts of war while not really responding with actual war. If noone escalates this further, the bloodless missile attack and the extra sanctions are going to be the end of this.

And about Iraq's request to the US to remove the troops. Can you please link an article about it? I've been looking about Iraq's reaction and I've been unable to find that fact.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Darwinianevolution said:

The US does not want war at any costs. No nation does. War is a last resort, and it would only do it if it is really be pushed into it. That doesn't mean they won't use the threat of it as a deterrent. The United States does not want another conflict, they'd rather take out the elements that are a threat to it directly, thus the drone attack instead of an invasion. Iran does not want war, they'd rather look "strong" in front of their population without risking the regime's existence in a war against the US. If the US knew that Solemini's death would have 100% caused a war with Iran, do you think they'd still had gone through with it? The same with Iran, if they knew the missile launches would've started a war with the US 100% guaranteed, would they have launched them? Both countries threatened each other with war, but neither one really wants it. And they are perfectly capable of saying the other's actions are acts of war while not really responding with actual war. If noone escalates this further, the bloodless missile attack and the extra sanctions are going to be the end of this.

And about Iraq's request to the US to remove the troops. Can you please link an article about it? I've been looking about Iraq's reaction and I've been unable to find that fact.

Seizing oil tankers is not Iran trying to look strong it's them actually doing something strong and the reason no one supports the action as all the oil passes through their region and that impacts economy and trade hard this is why Iran can't be fully sanctioned as they legally can block all oil. The US hardly knew about the attack on Solemini, Trump and a small group authorized it with out letting anyone know why do you think he's getting so much heat for it even from his own people this is why he's backing down

As for Iraq:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/iraq-asks-foreign-troops-to-leave-trump-threatens-iran-with-retaliation-120010600125_1.html



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
Darwinianevolution said:

The US does not want war at any costs. No nation does. War is a last resort, and it would only do it if it is really be pushed into it. That doesn't mean they won't use the threat of it as a deterrent. The United States does not want another conflict, they'd rather take out the elements that are a threat to it directly, thus the drone attack instead of an invasion. Iran does not want war, they'd rather look "strong" in front of their population without risking the regime's existence in a war against the US. If the US knew that Solemini's death would have 100% caused a war with Iran, do you think they'd still had gone through with it? The same with Iran, if they knew the missile launches would've started a war with the US 100% guaranteed, would they have launched them? Both countries threatened each other with war, but neither one really wants it. And they are perfectly capable of saying the other's actions are acts of war while not really responding with actual war. If noone escalates this further, the bloodless missile attack and the extra sanctions are going to be the end of this.

And about Iraq's request to the US to remove the troops. Can you please link an article about it? I've been looking about Iraq's reaction and I've been unable to find that fact.

Seizing oil tankers is not Iran trying to look strong it's them actually doing something strong and the reason no one supports the action as all the oil passes through their region and that impacts economy and trade hard this is why Iran can't be fully sanctioned as they legally can block all oil. The US hardly knew about the attack on Solemini, Trump and a small group authorized it with out letting anyone know why do you think he's getting so much heat for it even from his own people this is why he's backing down

As for Iraq:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/iraq-asks-foreign-troops-to-leave-trump-threatens-iran-with-retaliation-120010600125_1.html

The US not knowing the operation about Solemini is understandable. When chasing a terrorist, you don't announce it to the public beforehand, that's just warning him and giving him time to run and hide. This being a secret project close to the upper echelons of the US' military is natural, especially considering it happened on international soil. And about Trump getting flack... let's be honest, it's Trump we're talking about. Whether you think it's warranted or not, he's been getting heat for everything he's done even before he got elected. He could bring world peace and somehow get as much flack as if he had started WWIII.

The one thing I find interesting about this is Iraq asking the coalition's forces to leave. This is just me, but I feel this is just a momentary request (they can just ask for it and delay the exit enough to let it slide after everyone forgets about it). After all, there is no lost love between Iraq and Iran, and the fact that Soleimini was organizing terrorist cells within their country has certainly done nothing to make them feel more secure. Asking the US to take their forces away from their country seems only reasonable in a very superficial level, but Iraq is not a stable country, and wasn't really capable of fending off the many forces that participated in the civil war of 2014 without external aid, and I'm sure they realize it.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Hiku said:

Totally unpredictable

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html

This might be good enough for both sides for the time being as far as armed conflict is concerned. Sanctions are more of a diplomatic tool and we'll probably see things shift towards that direction.

The USA got to kill a general and claims that there were no casualities after the Iranian attack. Iran fired at Americans and claims that they killed a good bunch of them. Good enough for the leaders of both countries to convince their people of what they want to convince them of.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Darwinianevolution said:

The US not knowing the operation about Solemini is understandable. When chasing a terrorist, you don't announce it to the public beforehand, that's just warning him and giving him time to run and hide. This being a secret project close to the upper echelons of the US' military is natural, especially considering it happened on international soil. And about Trump getting flack... let's be honest, it's Trump we're talking about. Whether you think it's warranted or not, he's been getting heat for everything he's done even before he got elected. He could bring world peace and somehow get as much flack as if he had started WWIII.

The one thing I find interesting about this is Iraq asking the coalition's forces to leave. This is just me, but I feel this is just a momentary request (they can just ask for it and delay the exit enough to let it slide after everyone forgets about it). After all, there is no lost love between Iraq and Iran, and the fact that Soleimini was organizing terrorist cells within their country has certainly done nothing to make them feel more secure. Asking the US to take their forces away from their country seems only reasonable in a very superficial level, but Iraq is not a stable country, and wasn't really capable of fending off the many forces that participated in the civil war of 2014 without external aid, and I'm sure they realize it.

Are you serious with the first paragraph? I have to ask because I don't believe for a second you are as this comes across as coy especially with the context you've been replying in The US refers to congress, intelligence etc... Are you seriously telling me you believe those people would have announced the action to the world? Non of them were informed that's why he's getting flack you know why they need to be informed? So he can be advised on his actions otherwise you get political chaos like what has happened now, all of the US' allies have distanced themselves from the act even the Saudis with the only ally who supports it saying they won't touch any conflict with a barge pole meaning US would be with out allies in the war which also means you can't deploy from bases in said allies land this is why Trump has done a u-turn and is getting flack.

They asked US to leave because if a war breaks out guess who would have been the first to be invaded by Iran and who would become the battle ground for the war? They don't want a target on their backs you see the war in Afghanistan and how it's still going 18 years after it started with the US now trying to get out that's what Iraq would be dealing with should these two have a war this is why as long as conflict is a possibility they don't want US troops there.



Apparently a student who goes to the same HS I went to back in the day was on that plane... yikes. RIP to those who affected, and the Iranian gov can burn in hell (not like it didn't deserve it already) if it did something to that plane as retaliation (and it definitely looks like a real possibility so far).

And of course Canadians are in the cross-fire (again) of America's diplomatic strategy backfiring. 



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

Wyrdness said:
Darwinianevolution said:

The US not knowing the operation about Solemini is understandable. When chasing a terrorist, you don't announce it to the public beforehand, that's just warning him and giving him time to run and hide. This being a secret project close to the upper echelons of the US' military is natural, especially considering it happened on international soil. And about Trump getting flack... let's be honest, it's Trump we're talking about. Whether you think it's warranted or not, he's been getting heat for everything he's done even before he got elected. He could bring world peace and somehow get as much flack as if he had started WWIII.

The one thing I find interesting about this is Iraq asking the coalition's forces to leave. This is just me, but I feel this is just a momentary request (they can just ask for it and delay the exit enough to let it slide after everyone forgets about it). After all, there is no lost love between Iraq and Iran, and the fact that Soleimini was organizing terrorist cells within their country has certainly done nothing to make them feel more secure. Asking the US to take their forces away from their country seems only reasonable in a very superficial level, but Iraq is not a stable country, and wasn't really capable of fending off the many forces that participated in the civil war of 2014 without external aid, and I'm sure they realize it.

Are you serious with the first paragraph? I have to ask because I don't believe for a second you are as this comes across as coy especially with the context you've been replying in The US refers to congress, intelligence etc... Are you seriously telling me you believe those people would have announced the action to the world? Non of them were informed that's why he's getting flack you know why they need to be informed? So he can be advised on his actions otherwise you get political chaos like what has happened now, all of the US' allies have distanced themselves from the act even the Saudis with the only ally who supports it saying they won't touch any conflict with a barge pole meaning US would be with out allies in the war which also means you can't deploy from bases in said allies land this is why Trump has done a u-turn and is getting flack.

They asked US to leave because if a war breaks out guess who would have been the first to be invaded by Iran and who would become the battle ground for the war? They don't want a target on their backs you see the war in Afghanistan and how it's still going 18 years after it started with the US now trying to get out that's what Iraq would be dealing with should these two have a war this is why as long as conflict is a possibility they don't want US troops there.

Ok, when you said "The US hardly knew about the attack on Solemini, Trump and a small group authorized it" I assumed you meant the US population. The ones who knew are probably high ranking oficials from the military, secret services, maybe important diplomats who'd have to deal with this and Trump himself. I imagine this information was classified and still is, and we don't know barely anything about it, not even other high ranking officials that aren't just high enough or were not relevant for the operation. And I'm sure both Trump and the higher officials I've mentioned knew of this. Trump can't just wake up one morning and decide to take down an important general from another country, the amount of resources, intel and personnel (not to mention all of the red tape and bureocratic and diplomatic effords before and after the deed) he'd need to do that would be enough to slow down the project to a crawl if there wasn't a general consensus. And if it was actually a rather detrimental one for the US, and he would still try to push it through, there would be a "convenient" leak that would throw all the plan to the garbage can. Again, this was probably months, if not years, in the making.

And no, probably none of the allies were informed of this very secret operation. Even if it was to preserve the information integrity of it. Though it's not like they would oppose to it if they knew. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia compete with Iran for influence on the Middle East, and Soleimini (and by extension Iran) has organized attacks against both of them. Of course they'd say they want nothing to do with a conflict, but there's a difference between the official message and the actual political game. Saying they don't want war and wish to start a conflict is easy (and to be fair, it's probably true they want peace), but I can't see any of them lamenting Soleimini's death. And neither would Iraq, considering Iran has been interfeering in that country through diverse means (from terrorism to political activism in favour of Iran) so asking the US to leave is just a temporal thing that will end up in nothing.

And, like I've said in a previous post, there is no real chance for war, because noone wants it, and noone would profit from it. Iran wants no war because they'd be wiped out. The US and allies want no war because of the human and economical consequences of it, not to mention the massive wave of worldwide terrorism that would be born in the wake of Iran's fall.

Last edited by Darwinianevolution - on 08 January 2020

You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.