If the protesters are so pro-iranian, then why is the current pro-Iranian PM resigning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papay
Printable View
If the protesters are so pro-iranian, then why is the current pro-Iranian PM resigning?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papay
Let me clarify: I don't "support" military strikes in the Middle East by any faction. If I had my way we'd never had invaded Iraq in the first place. However, if such strikes must happen, I'd rather they caused damage to the region's agitating warlords rather than its civilians. The purpose of my original post was to highlight the lunacy of the leftists and nonconformists who've collapsed in tears over the demise of a ruthless militant, not because they fear the blowback, but because they see it as means of denigrating il Cheeto Benito and, in some cases, the US itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by The spartan
And on that point, let me also say I still don't think that Trump is a "war-hawk" in his heart. His post factum press conference (which was one of the better addresses he has made) suggests to me that his intention was to shock the Iranian leadership.
"Culture" is only aQuote:
Originally Posted by Ludicus
germaniranian mace to slain pure american virgins.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So you better bomb this WMD preventive away.
Trump is now verbally checking around with Chameini, who has the biggest, like Teens on the schoolyard.
Why shall a resign from 31. October 2019 be relevant for the actual mood in Iraq?Quote:
You do know the protests haven't stopped right? Doesn't look like the Iraqi attitude toward their government has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmen Sylva
Ten thousands in the streets of Bagdad mourning Suleimanis death is clearly proving your point.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/...suleimani.html
https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2020/4...ssem-soleimaniQuote:
Originally Posted by Carmen Sylva
You were saying?
He's saying that Soleimani was mourned by thousands in Iraq. At worst, you've shown us that there are a variety of opinions in Iraq. Iraq is majority Shia, and much of the government post-Saddam has ties to Iran. Compounded with the fact that the post-Saddam government is viewed as corrupt and incompetent by Iraqis, this creates a lot of different and conflicting opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
1) Mm-hmm. And I'd tell you the conclusions I've drawn from having studied and witnessed what comes of letting Iran play its games with little in the way of direct checks like this since the Islamic Revolution, but I think you can guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
2) Iraqi militiamen belonging to outfits supported and commanded by Soleimani and the Quds Force, remember? S'pretty funny that you consider Al-Monitor and Macleans 'neocon sources', too - as far as I recall, Al-Monitor has been accused of being too friendly to Assad and Macleans is as friendly to Trump as other mainstream Canadian outlets, ie. not at all.
3) You know, it's rich AF that you're sitting around accusing me of irrationally hating Iran and the 'neocons' and 'neolibs' (who, it seems, are anyone but extreme isolationists who'd roll over for any and all anti-American forces as far as you're concerned) of being chicken-hearted warhawks, while you're the one who not only wants the Iranian people to remain under the thumb of theocrats but also for those theocrats to fight with the States so soon after Trump demonstrated that he wouldn't take even a single American casualty lying down; something that'd get them and their country crushed in retaliation, just to satisfy your anti-American fantasy. If I recall correctly from our clashes in the early 2010s, back when you were still Volh Vseslavich, you're Canadian aren't you? Unless you've moved to Iran and joined the IRGC while I was taking an extended break from the Mudpit to focus on the fun parts of this site and life, that puts you well outside of any danger that Iran'd be in should the mullahs do as you wish for them to. I also detect a distinct lack of an actual response to my reasoning as to why a war won't actually happen, BTW...
Ah, but who am I kidding. If you're gonna reject any source I, or quite probably anyone else, posts that might paint Iran in a less than stellar light and the US in a less than godawful one as a 'neocon source', there's no point in trying to carry on a debate with you. Have a nice evening.
In all my years on this site I've never seen someone so dedicated to embarrassing themselves more than once in a thread they made. If only this spring wasn't loaded with games I'd like to buy I'd open a betting pool on how quickly this prediction of yours falls apart: faster than the one you made in the OP, or slower? I've also gotta ask about what's brought on such blind and ineffectual hatred, do you just have a very specific fetish for the humiliation of the self in threads about geopolitics by way of one's own posts - it's OK either way though, I promise I won't judge (too harshly).Quote:
Originally Posted by Exarch
-----
Re: Tonight's threats to destroy 52 targets in Iran, including cultural heritage sites: I'm reasonably sure that's just a chest-thumping bluff from Trump in response to that Iranian general's chest-thumping bluff about already having 35 targets lined up, one of which is Tel Aviv. Nobody openly talks about the things they're going to target before they actually do it, and far from a swift and bloody strike at US assets in Iraq or elsewhere Iran's 'retaliation' as of nearly 48 hours after Soleimani's death has consisted of that ineffective missile attack leaving few to no casualties I linked to on the last page, hacking the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank's website, and attempting to sue the US in international courts. I think this article is more or less spot-on in so far as the Iranians ultimately aren't actually going to seriously physically attack US installations or Americans in the wake of Soleimani's death - they now have a good idea of what it'll cost them and aren't willing to pay that price - but instead will try to play the victim and wait out Trump. And so long as that's the case, Trump won't smite them nearly as hard as he just did either - after all, it's been reported that he called off retaliatory airstrikes for the downing of an American drone in June because no American lives were lost then.
That said, if the USAF does actually blow up the Tomb of Cyrus tomorrow, I might just buy three MAGA hats and eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But I still think there's a bigger chance of me winning the lottery than that happening.
No, the US doesn’t have the prerogative to “do whatever we want.” If Trump had signed off on this strike before prior to impeachment, there’s a decent case to add an article just for this. We also can’t expect other countries to follow rules if we don’t either. Knocking out Soleimani was a legitimate and well-deserved response to Tehran’s attacks, but it was also probably illegal. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the world will write this off as “Trump being Trump (the damage to US credibility is moot given the current POTUS),” or the impact it will have on Tehran’s ability to sponsor and launch attacks around the world. The Europeans are mostly just angry that US containment policy won’t let them do business with Islamist radicals, but as we’ve seen, the joke’s on them since Tehran is only interested in using the EU as leverage against the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Love Mountain
If that’s the case, then criticism of any terrorism is “hollow.” I don’t consider such a thought exercise to be useful or compelling. I’ll continue to regard the Islamist terrorist authoritarian regime in Tehran as “evil” as any other, for all intents and purposes, and all the more dangerous in light of her track record.Quote:
I just think crying about how evil Tehran's support of terrorism is, is a hollow criticism. Tehran and Washington are doing what they are because they're pursuing their national interest. Tehran's foreign policy is no more nefarious than ours.
I asked you what US actions prompted 40 years of terrorism and attacks by Tehran against the US and her allies, and your response is to broadly reference US reactions to said attacks.Quote:
On-going economic sanctions against Iran and direct support for Iran's geopolitical adversaries in the middle east.
Are you really going to tell me that the sanctions are there to stop a Jihad that the Ayatollah is planning? Really?
You’ve made it clear you believe most everything is the US’ fault and justify that with the standard whataboutist talking points like the above. In reality, the Shah’s Iran was considered a pillar of US allied stability in the Gulf. This arrangement made Tehran filthy rich, and Khomeini eagerly communicated to the US his desire to continue that arrangement months before dooming it forever as he launched “global Islamic revolution” against the world. Tehran is still clutching her pearls to this very day, demanding the EU include oil purchases in any sanctions relief package, even as she continues exporting terrorism and proxy wars.Quote:
United States granted asylum to a dictator the Iranians just deposed, and the very next year they sent massive amounts of assistance to a country that invaded them.
This talking point is immaterial to your assertion that the US is responsible for Tehran’s 40 year campaign of terrorism and “irregular warfare.” Suffice it to say the latter is your opinion and I disagree.Quote:
United States bears responsibility for the state of affairs in the middle east. Do they get all of the blame? No, but refusing responsibility for making things worse is just naive.
Legality doesn't really matter when "might is right" always applies. Who's going to do anything when a powerful country decides to act?Quote:
No, the US doesn’t have the prerogative to “do whatever we want.” If Trump had signed off on this strike before prior to impeachment, there’s a decent case to add an article just for this. We also can’t expect other countries to follow rules if we don’t either. Knocking out Soleimani was a legitimate and well-deserved response to Tehran’s attacks, but it was also probably illegal. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the world will write this off as “Trump being Trump (the damage to US credibility is moot given the current POTUS),” or the impact it will have on Tehran’s ability to sponsor and launch attacks around the world. The Europeans are mostly just angry that US containment policy won’t let them do business with Islamist radicals, but as we’ve seen, the joke’s on them since Tehran is only interested in using the EU as leverage against the US.
The only time laws are enforced are in rare circumstances like the Syria missile attacks by USA (punitive attacks as Syria / Russia kept using chemical weapons).
There was this one time when i was in a McDonalds in California and they gave me sugar free coke rather than normal coke. Death to America, for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Goldwater
---.Quote:
--
Re: Tonight's threats to destroy 52 targets in Iran, including cultural heritage sites: I'm reasonably sure that's just a chest-thumping bluff from Trump in response to that Iranian general's chest-thumping bluff about already having 35 targets lined up, one of which is Tel Aviv. Nobody openly talks about the things they're going to target before they actually do it, and far from a swift and bloody strike at US assets in Iraq or elsewhere Iran's 'retaliation' as of nearly 48 hours after Soleimani's death has consisted of that ineffective missile attack leaving few to no casualties I linked to on the last page, hacking the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank's website, and attempting to sue the US in international courts. I think this article is more or less spot-on in so far as the Iranians ultimately aren't actually going to seriously physically attack US installations or Americans in the wake of Soleimani's death - they now have a good idea of what it'll cost them and aren't willing to pay that price - but instead will try to play the victim and wait out Trump. And so long as that's the case, Trump won't smite them nearly as hard as he just did either - after all, it's been reported that he called off retaliatory airstrikes for the downing of an American drone in June because no American lives were lost then.
That said, if the USAF does actually blow up the Tomb of Cyrus tomorrow, I might just buy three MAGA hats and eat them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But I still think there's a bigger chance of me winning the lottery than that happening
Fact is, i'm more amused by the sheer cowardice of the average american; the sheer hint or whiff of WW3 or conscription has the vast majority of military age american males scrambling to avoid their national duty to fight and die for their nation:
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-draft-risesQuote:
Selective Service Website Falters Over #WWIII Draft Fears
Americans talk up a big game about how superior their arms are, or how good their soldiers are, but when comes time to pick up the sword, they piss their britches and try to identify as women to get out of fighting. This is late stage decline of the american empire stuff, when the average american citizen is too much of a pussy to fight for their nation and fears being sent to the front line.
The Persians have unfurled the blood red flag; anglo american blood will be spilt this night.
Eh, you talk big, not jut here but in other threads, threatening and boasting....so I dare you to actually enlist in your precious Chinese army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exarch;15863969Fact is, i'm more amused by the sheer cowardice of the average american; the sheer hint or whiff of WW3 or conscription has the vast majority of military age american males scrambling to avoid their national duty to fight and die for their nation:
Source: [URL
I'm not Chinese, and the PLA doesn't accept non citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sar1n
Besides, what makes you think i'm anti American? Some of my favourite people and friends are white anglo american and i enjoy american pornography.
Not to distract from the thread, but when a nation starts a war by killing the equivalent of SECDEF or Petraeus, they should at least have the cojones to back up words with action. The average american male of military age is a sorry specimen comparable to late roman empire latins.
You do realize that to even re start the draft you need a need law from congress. The Selective service web site is almost certainly hardly the most robust and well funded and everyone you know used it on their 18 birthday - its not a volunteer mechanism.Quote:
Americans talk up a big game about how superior their arms are, or how good their soldiers are, but when comes time to pick up the sword, they piss their britches and try to identify as women to get out of fighting. This is late stage decline of the american empire stuff, when the average american citizen is too much of a pussy to fight for their nation and fears being sent to the front line.
So far would seem to be a bit more Persian blood if we are keeping score in the current situation.Quote:
The Persians have unfurled the blood red flag; anglo american blood will be spilt this night.
Depends could thay (Romans) do calculus. Sorry Exharch my son and friends I think six if I counted the conversations (while gaming) right just had sarcastic fun over all being signed up with the selective service during today and my daughter is still working on her application to the Naval academy. They don't seem to be missing their cojones and are all liberal lefties from the alternative high school.Quote:
Not to distract from the thread, but when a nation starts a war by killing the equivalent of SECDEF or Petraeus, they should at least have the cojones to back up words with action. The average american male of military age is a sorry specimen comparable to late roman empire latins.
I'm not sure how the bolded message counters anything I said. You're taking my words too literally. The point is that it's not international institutions that keep United States accountable. The Europeans are angry, because United States unilaterally withdrew from JCPOA, setting its own stated non-proliferation goals back, not to mention that they have jeopardized a line of dialogue and possible progress on reducing regional tensions. If you want to reduce Tehran's use of proxies, you have to talk to Iran. Continuing current U.S. policy is not going to do that. By antagonizing Iran you are forcing it to resort to these tactics. Assassinating Soleimani was a disproportionate response to on-going hostilities between Iran and other US backed regimes. By killing him, you're lighting a fuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legio_Italica
You can think whatever you want. Fact remains that Iran's actions have causes, and by engaging in punitive actions without addressing these causes is throwing oil into the oven. You're welcome to think that economic sanctions and assassinations of Iranian commanders is well-deserved. Neither has produced a tangible reduction in terrorism or warfare. In fact, few U.S. policies in the region have produced any sort of success precisely because we approach problems in this way.Quote:
If that’s the case, then criticism of any terrorism is “hollow.” I don’t consider such a thought exercise to be useful or compelling. I’ll continue to regard the Islamist terrorist authoritarian regime in Tehran as “evil” as any other, for all intents and purposes, and all the more dangerous in light of her track record.
What terrorism was United States responding to when they deposed Mohammad Mossadegh? What terrorism was United States responding to when they refused to hand over the Shah of Iran? What terrorism was United States responding to when they fed intelligence and arms to Iraq? What terrorism was United States responding to when they shot down an Iranian plane?Quote:
I asked you what US actions prompted 40 years of terrorism and attacks by Tehran against the US and her allies, and your response is to broadly reference US reactions to said attacks.
"Whataboutism", when U.S. was supporting Iraq in a war literally immediately after the revolution. I can't imagine how that would foster any kind of resentment.Quote:
You’ve made it clear you believe most everything is the US’ fault and justify that with the standard whataboutist talking points like the above. In reality, the Shah’s Iran was considered a pillar of US allied stability in the Gulf. This arrangement made Tehran filthy rich, and Khomeini eagerly communicated to the US his desire to continue that arrangement months before dooming it forever as he launched “global Islamic revolution” against the world. Tehran is still clutching her pearls to this very day, demanding the EU include oil purchases in any sanctions relief package, even as she continues exporting terrorism and proxy wars.
I didn't claim that United States is entirely responsible for Tehran's actions. The point is that United States is responsible for the direction Iran took. Actions have consequences, and pretending that history is irrelevant is why Iran does not trust United States. Assassinating Soleimani is yet another blunder from us. The Pentagon just can't stop tripping over its own feet when it comes to the middle east.Quote:
This talking point is immaterial to your assertion that the US is responsible for Tehran’s 40 year campaign of terrorism and “irregular warfare.” Suffice it to say the latter is your opinion and I disagree.
Interesting how you screeched in defiance about Gabbard requesting Congressional oversight/authorization for the strikes against Syrian govt. forces in 2017, but now you think that Trump should be impeached (again lol) for taking similar executive action in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legio_Italica
Imagine third-party countries being irritated that the US unilaterally abandoned the Iran treaty to pursue its own "containment policy". Ungrateful, salty Euros.Quote:
It remains to be seen whether the rest of the world will write this off as “Trump being Trump (the damage to US credibility is moot given the current POTUS),” or the impact it will have on Tehran’s ability to sponsor and launch attacks around the world. The Europeans are mostly just angry that US containment policy won’t let them do business with Islamist radicals, but as we’ve seen, the joke’s on them since Tehran is only interested in using the EU as leverage against the US.
The anxiety amongst the current generation of american stock over being made to fight for the glory of america is truly revealing. Look at the trending hashtags on twitter showing the anxiety of young american males over their potential drafting. Of course, this could also be just another case of attention seeking behaviour by these same young american males.Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
An equivalent would be like the Iranians capturing Pompeo and mailing parts of his body back to the White House.Quote:
So far would seem to be a bit more Persian blood if we are keeping score in the current situation.
Calculus as we know it didn't really exist back in the late Roman era (then and again, trying to do calculations using Roman numerals is always going to be a pain in the arse).Quote:
Depends could thay (Romans) do calculus. Sorry Exharch my son and friends I think six if I counted the conversations (while gaming) right just had sarcastic fun over all being signed up with the selective service during today and my daughter is still working on her application to the Naval academy. They don't seem to be missing their cojones and are all liberal lefties from the alternative high school.
Anyway, you come from privilege; chances are, your daughter and your son and friends will get easy postings, like Dubya in the Air National Guard. It won't be the case for the other Americans who had to navigate Iraqi IED laden streets back in the days of the Surge and Sunni Awakening. That's the true price of American glory. Getting a cushy posting is no different to Stolen Valour, since all veterans are assumed to have served in a wartime capacity.
Well it seems Trump's election plan is to start a war
What else is new? Trump got elected first time partly because he represented noninterventionism. Obama won first time because he represented noninterventionism. In 2000 we have this precious gem:
But then you don't give a :wub: so you change course whilst not wanting to admit it, so you defend yourself all the way to Kabul/Baghdad/Tripoli/etc.Quote:
During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-so...o-invade-iraq/
https://iraq.liveuamap.com/en/2020/5...d-the-security
Looks like America is out. The Syrian withdraw is starting to look like a real dumb move.