# Does Trump provoke Iran as an election stunt?



## Taleweaver (Jan 7, 2020)

On the 2nd of January, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general, on Iraqi soil. While there was context leading up to this (I'll get to that), it's a fact several experts and pentagon employees claim it was just 'another day in the middle east'. Congress wasn't even informed of the action until afterward.

I have to admit: I never heard of the guy. And my guess is: neither did you (hint: his name never came up on gbatemp until now). But that's okay, because neither did Donald Trump prior to his election. That's not the issue, though: you don't have to be the poster child of Al-qaeda or IS to be an enemy of the USA. The problem is that Soleimani wasn't leading some gang of ragtag rebels, but is (was) a genuine Iranian military leader. About the second most important man in Iran, as far as I hear. So lemme ask you this: if another country bombs Mike Pence...would it be considered an act of war (regardless of whether it was provoked or not)?

...I'm going to assume your answer is "yes" in this (if not, please comment below  ). So likewise, it's not exactly surprising that the entire country screams "death to the US"(1). And hey...since Donald treats the country as if they aren't following the nuclear agreement, exactly what reason do they still have to follow that treaty in the first place(2)? Result:

@donald Trump: thanks a lot, fuckwad. You might not care about maintaining relationships with a country that want to throw a nuclear bomb on your ass, but the rest of the world fucking cares. I hope you not only get removed from office but put on a one-way ticket to the middle east, asshole. Good luck convincing them in person that your action was to avoid war.


Ahem...personal opinion aside: let's talk about how we got in this mess (source: NY times). Soleimani wasn't an innocent Joe by a long shot. From what I gather (yes: after the facts) Soleimani ordered bombings on US military depots in the region(3) in december. Following this, pentagon officials gave Trump some options on how to respond to this. Taking Soleimani oout was apparently a comedy last option. A sort of equivalent of a "GO ALL NUCLEAR ON THEM!!!!" option that's only there to make the other options less humane(4).
It has to be said: Trump went with an "eye for an eye" response: the US followed suit and bombed some Iranian facilities. Yes, it's cynical that this is considered "another day in the middle east" by experts, but that's how things go.
Of course Iran (Soleimani?) acted as if their casualties were important - gee? I wonder why? - and talked about retaliation.

At this point, Trump's thought process becomes important. The guy is an enemy of the US, no doubt about it. That's what happens if you scavenge other countries for their natural resources: you learn how to live with having enemies. And admitted: trading bombardments isn't exactly going to bring world peace any closer. Why why the elimination?
Look...I didn't call Al-qaeda and IS "ragtag rebels" because I like saying it but because at the time their leaders were killed, it's what they had become. If Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi were killed when their groups were the hype of the day, two others would have taken their place. So as much as I personally dislike Donald, taking out al-Baghdadi was, effectively, the right thing to do. So a 'thanks' is in order. So here it is: thanks, Donald. I'd say "try not to squander your built reputation credit all at once", but you were already so far in the negative that gratefulness was hardly closer.
But to get back at that thought process: what _was_ he thinking prior to choosing that assassination? Did he blatantly forget that Iran has nuclear potential? Did he really not foresee that this call for war would be their reaction? Was he jealous of the fact that Soleimani fought IS better than the US army? Was he seeing an opportunity to deflect the attention from the fact that he's impeached and facing trial?  (because yeah...thanks to this shit show, nobody's asking McConnell why he wants to turn the Senate's most important duty into class justice(5) ) Oh, and right...shouldn't Pompeo and Pence be the adults in the room? I mean...it's been a public secret since about the release of 'Fire and fury' that the white house employees more or less run the place by choosing which documents Trump gets to read. Shouldn't these muppets be able to temper him when he has a tantrum like this? 

Either way...that's when the decision was made to start a war with Iran. You might disagree and be dumb enough to think that it's just about taking out an enemy of the US, but as I've pointed out these matters are inseparable at this point. Heck...it's worse than that: by killing without warning on Iraqi soil, just about the entire middle east now has beef with the US. And that's about as grim as it can be: a unified middle east would've been a fine thing to achieve. But unfortunately for us(6), they're uniting against the West...


Since then, Trump is of course playing dumb (her's a backhand compliment for ya: he's good at that). Claiming on one hand that he doesn't want a war but almost at the same time saying he has 52 targets picked in case Iran responds in any way. Meanwhile Pence openly talks about lunatic conspiracy theories (seriously? 9/11 _AGAIN_? No, Mike. Get off the stage before someone hands you a "when you lose the crowd, mention 'weapons of mass destruction' until they cheer for you again" card). So...war. Yeey.

Fuckwads.


Oh...right: the poll. At this point I can't even be bothered to attempt neutrality. For what it's worth, I voted "No, he's just too dumb". It's a myth to think that leaders are much smarter than you...they at best have better advisors. But since Trump fires everyone smarter than him, I think that reducing his huga-ass impopularity (last I heard 55% wanted him removed from office. That's a lot, considering that most Americans avoid politics like the plague) is at best a factor in his process. He's just a weak man trying to be strong. So he makes those decisions, expecting that someone else will clean up the mess (what? HIS mess? of course not! He's Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't do mistakes  ).





(1): in this matter, it's actually convenient that Pence isn't exactly a charismatic leader that is a shining beacon to his people. If he was, the comparison would've been better but y'all would have taken it way too personal to even consider that other countries might not want their leaders get killed by foreigners either.
(2): yes, I know...in a theoretical fashion, the treaty is still held between Iran and the EU member states. But since the USA bullies our companies when they do business with Iran, it undermines that reason to uphold it as well
(3): he's also suspected of that attack on oil transports at sea and a drone strike on an oil refinery. While not proven, these are considered to have a huge impact on the global oil market
(4): both W. Bush and Obama were in similar situations. They went (and stayed with) other options
(5): at least republicans aren't wrong when they call it 'a sham' or 'kangourou court'. Now all they need to do is admit that it's because of their actions (refute witnesses, allowing documents not to be released, openly discuss with the accused...)
(6): make no mistake: Europe at best isn't _immediately _involved in this mess. But like your Iraqi mess lead to IS lead to multiple bombings (among which in my proverbial backyard), I'm sure that Europe will be seen as an accomplish in the upcoming mess as well.


----------



## Kurt91 (Jan 7, 2020)

I don't have an actual keyboard right now and am clicking letters on an on-screen one, so forgive being brief...

What about the attack on the embassy? The US embassy there is considered American soil, and so the attack on it was literally an attack on the United States directly. Killing the general responsible for the attack seems like a natural response to a literal act of war.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

I think there were two main motivators in his decision to assassinate Soleimani: de facto declaration of war was a backup plan to boost his re-election chances (since extorting Ukraine failed), and he was informed it was an action that both GWB and Obama declined to take (for good reasons).  In other words, it was all about ego.  And while traditionally the US does not change presidents during war time, I think this move will backfire spectacularly this time around, given how deeply unpopular war has become (even among conservatives) in the nearly twenty years since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Additionally, his timing couldn't have been worse.  A lot of Iranian citizens were beginning to turn against their own government prior to this assassination.  A bit of information warfare would've helped the process of revolution along, but instead Trump has united and galvanized the entire country against the US and our allies.



Kurt91 said:


> I don't have an actual keyboard right now and am clicking letters on an on-screen one, so forgive being brief...
> 
> What about the attack on the embassy? The US embassy there is considered American soil, and so the attack on it was literally an attack on the United States directly. Killing the general responsible for the attack seems like a natural response to a literal act of war.


There were no casualties in this "attack," the embassy had already been evacuated.  The worst that happened was the side of the building got graffitied.  Definitely not justification for assassinating Iran's second in command while he was on a diplomatic mission, regardless of his past actions.  Also we killed a high-ranking Iraqi official in the process, and the Iraqi parliament has since voted unanimously to expel all US troops from the country.  The resolution is non-binding for now, but we can be sure that a binding resolution is coming if we don't comply.


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 7, 2020)

They kept poking the bear and got the fangs.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

Snugglevixen said:


> They kept poking the bear and got the fangs.


And there will only be more fangs in retaliation.  Iran has the 8th largest military in the world, not to mention influence over sleeper cells worldwide.  They can and will resort to asymmetric warfare if provoked further.  This war would make Iraq look like a little girl's tea party in comparison, and we'd likely be stuck fighting it for 15+ years.

"Oh, but Hillary was a war hawk and Trump promised to get us out of endless wars!"  What a fucking joke.  Just more shit-huffing neocons sending the poor to die for their own profit.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 7, 2020)

Jesus christ how fuckin one sided can u be. Your so against trump u cant see past it to the bigger picture. What if you was one of the people killed in soleimani ordered bombings would u want someone to dish out justice or would u be like no fuck it dont let trump do it. For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble. People like you would blame trump for the sky being blue on a sunny day when the forecast called for rain.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

wartutor said:


> For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble.


Which would end up turning the entire world into nuclear rubble.  But fuck it, I guess humanity can only get worse from here on out if people as ignorant and bloodthirsty as you exist.  Time to let evolution give another species a chance.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 7, 2020)

Kurt91 said:


> What about the attack on the embassy? The US embassy there is considered American soil, and so the attack on it was literally an attack on the United States directly. Killing the general responsible for the attack seems like a natural response to a literal act of war.


I have to disagree with this. Yes, the attack of the embassy is a literal attack on the USA (casualties: 1 US contractor; 2 Iraqi security forcesEDIT: it was actually zero). It was the incident I was referring to earlier. Trump's initial response was bombing five weapon storage facilities...on Iranian soil (casualties: 25 militia members). Again: it's a grim trade, and particularly cynical if that is to be "another day in the middle east". But let's not pretend that Soleimani just had a bad day when he ordered that attack. All of these actions are based on prior actions by the other team. That's why "but he started it!!!" is hardly fair, and it's more important to respond in a correct fashion.

EDIT: rats...I've got my own sources wrong. @Xzi was actually right: the attack on the embassy was more a bunch of hooligans trashing the reception area of the US embassy.

To be clear, the situation was as follows:
-27/12: attack on Iraqi airbase (casualties: that one US contractor I mentioned earlier. The security forces were injured instead of killed).
-29/12: bombing of five weapon storage facilities...but in Iraq and Syria (casualties: those 25 militia members)
-31/12: storming of the US embassy by a bunch of hooligans (in Baghdad, Iraq)




wartutor said:


> Jesus christ how fuckin one sided can u be. Your so against trump u cant see past it to the bigger picture. What if you was one of the people killed in soleimani ordered bombings would u want someone to dish out justice or would u be like no fuck it dont let trump do it. For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble. People like you would blame trump for the sky being blue on a sunny day when the forecast called for rain.


Okay...I'll take that into consideration. But since you're so empathic, surely you can return the favor and imagine how it would be if you were one of the 25 militia members in that weapon depot. Or being nuked to death because some leaders don't give a damn about consequences.

I blame Trump for bringing nuclear war closer to reality. That's a far stretch from blaming him the sky is blue. Not just because I happen to be right in this, but also because it's also fucking IMPORTANT. Peace is worth fighting for. And Trump's the enemy in this case.
Feel free to disagree, but trying to do it off as me being subjective isn't going to change that he's bringing a huge war more likely to happen.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Yes, the attack of the embassy is a literal attack on the USA (casualties: 1 US contractor; 2 Iraqi security forces).


I stand corrected, I hadn't heard there were any casualties in that attack.  On that subject, though, has there been any evidence released proving that Iran ordered it?  Or are we just taking the government's word for it (which isn't worth much currently)?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 7, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I stand corrected, I hadn't heard there were any casualties in that attack.  On that subject, though, has there been any evidence released proving that Iran ordered it?  Or are we just taking the government's word for it (which isn't worth much currently)?


Sorry...it is I who stands corrected. Upon checking for an answer, I found that contractor wasn't in the embassy but on a military base (I edited my previous reply to reflect this).
From https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/31/us-embassy-attack-iraq-091585]this source[/url]: _No one was immediately reported hurt in the rampage and security staff had withdrawn to inside the embassy earlier, soon after protesters gathered outside.
_
...but from what I read, I'd say this was just a public riot. Not aimed, not political, not...really anything but people disliking US bombing them. So at this point, I'm sort of lost in how Soleimani enters this picture (aside from being a checkpoint on a list on the pentagon, that is).

I'm perhaps naive in believing the US government in this regard, but unlike Trump, I believe that the US army doesn't make these sorts of allegations lightly. If for no other reason, they're the one having to deal with the consequences (@wartutor: take note, buddy. I'm subjective towards Trump, but still give your army the benefit of the doubt).


----------



## wartutor (Jan 7, 2020)

How would it be trumps fault if they retaliate with nuclear weapons. Bottom line is the guy deserved to die. Blaming trump like you are is like blaming remington for someone else shooting someone with one of there model guns. We cant just let people do whatever they want because we are afraid of "nuclear" war. If it comes to it america needs to be ready to nuke before getting nuked. Shit or get off the pot


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

wartutor said:


> How would it be trumps fault if they retaliate with nuclear weapons.


First of all, Trump is the one that reneged on the nuclear nonproliferation agreement we had with Iran, which they were fully compliant with.  Second, he assassinated Iran's second in command in an act of unprovoked aggression (imagine if another country had done that to Mike Pence).  Third, Trump ceded the moral high ground to Iran, as he threatened to target Iranian cultural sites (a war crime), and in response Iran said they have no quarrel with the American people, only with Trump himself.  They also posted a list of properties owned by him.

So yes, no matter how much you want to play the victim on his behalf, Donald Trump has proven himself unequivocally to be America's biggest piece of shit.  I say we air mail him straight to Tehran, with or without a parachute, and this whole conflict would end just like that.  The American people have far more in common with Iranian citizens than they do with the billionaires attempting to send them to their deaths.  No war but class war.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 7, 2020)

wartutor said:


> How would it be trumps fault if they retaliate with nuclear weapons.


Easy: they do the same reasoning you do. The constant bombings, casualties and threats don't breed much sympathy for the US. Rather the contrary, in fact. Just now, I read in my local news paper that Iran is actually rather torn on Soleimani: the conservative/religious groupings loved him and are prime to avenge him. The more liberal just want to try to build up the country. However, with Trump pointing out (among others) cultural heritages, he's rubbing this group the wrong way as well.
Result: that "For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble" opinion is gaining popularity there as well. It's just referring to the US rather than Iran.



wartutor said:


> Bottom line is the guy deserved to die.


I don't like repeating myself, mate. Remember I said that if you do that when his support is strong, you'll just create two more? That's what's happening now. Trump's shortsightedness increased the problem rather than decrease it.



wartutor said:


> We cant just let people do whatever they want because we are afraid of "nuclear" war.


I can agree to that. Did you see me judge Trump from bombing those military complexes? You didn't, because I don't.


wartutor said:


> If it comes to it america needs to be ready to nuke before getting nuked. Shit or get off the pot


That'll get you both killed (and probably a large part of the rest of the world due to the fallout). It's that "if it comes to it" that is the crux here: _you don't get to let it come to it. _Why do you think I want Trump removed from office? Because he's a bad leader? Sorry, but no. Empathy aside, I honestly don't care that much because I'm not a citizen in your banana republic. I want him because he's a hazard to the rest of the world. He's not the only world leader in that regard, but at least the others try to seek some sort of equilibrium. Trump just wants to see the world burn.
So to borrow your phrase: he needs to get off the pot.


----------



## WorldOfNerds (Jan 7, 2020)

Snugglevixen said:


> They kept poking the bear and got the fangs.


soon he'll be in the belly of the beast, if he keeps this up. also note he's only the second president to be impeached, but he's unlikely to lose his seat on the throne any time soon. I'd hate to admit it, but he's most likely going to get re-elected this year.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Easy: they do the same reasoning you do. The constant bombings, casualties and threats don't breed much sympathy for the US. Rather the contrary, in fact. Just now, I read in my local news paper that Iran is actually rather torn on Soleimani: the conservative/religious groupings loved him and are prime to avenge him. The more liberal just want to try to build up the country. However, with Trump pointing out (among others) cultural heritages, he's rubbing this group the wrong way as well.
> Result: that "For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble" opinion is gaining popularity there as well. It's just referring to the US rather than Iran.
> 
> 
> ...



There's one thing that really makes me shake in my boots, the united states has the worlds most powerful arsenal under their fingertips, if a war does happen, my country will most likely side with him (not that WE would get a say) and the only ones that could counter him is China, _A.K.A Trumps old joke_.


----------



## Viri (Jan 7, 2020)

Nothing will happen. Just a bunch of people will burn some flags and say "Death to America!". Iran is all bark and no bite, just like North Korea.

Has the flag burning happened yet?

At least everyone got out of the embassy in time. And we didn't have a repeat of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack


----------



## WorldOfNerds (Jan 7, 2020)

Viri said:


> Nothing will happen. Just a bunch of people will burn some flags and say "Death to America!". Iran is all bark and no bite, just like North Korea.
> 
> Has the flag burning happened yet?
> 
> ...


"you can only bend a stick so far before it snaps"


----------



## Bonehead (Jan 7, 2020)

Orange war good


----------



## WorldOfNerds (Jan 7, 2020)

Bonehead said:


> Orange war good


war bad


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 7, 2020)

Viri said:


> Nothing will happen. Just a bunch of people will burn some flags and say "Death to America!". Iran is all bark and no bite, just like North Korea.
> Has the flag burning happened yet?


I agree that flag burning is silly, but this arrogant view can easily backfire. Trump constantly focuses on Iran even though Iran is the reason the blag flag has not been raised over Damaskus and Baghad. Iran is remarkably peaceful all things considered. Almost/Virtually none of the terror attacks in the West were perpetrated by Shia Muslims. The US calling Iran a state sponsor of terror makes the uninformed think that they are behind 9/11 (Mike Pence even alluded to as much) and the monthly/weekly attacks ever since. If you leave Iran alone, they leave you alone (unlike certain countries the US is allied with).
The truth is, both the US and Iran view each other as terror states (Iran has now followed suit) and BOTH use terrorism through proxies.
The US recent attack changed things, however. It was a direct attack.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 7, 2020)

WorldOfNerds said:


> note he's only the second president to be impeached


Third.


WorldOfNerds said:


> united states has the worlds most powerful arsenal under their fingertips


Russia.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 7, 2020)

Xzi said:


> First of all, Trump is the one that reneged on the nuclear nonproliferation agreement we had with Iran, which they were fully compliant with.  Second, he assassinated Iran's second in command in an act of unprovoked aggression (imagine if another country had done that to Mike Pence).  Third, Trump ceded the moral high ground to Iran, as he threatened to target Iranian cultural sites (a war crime), and in response Iran said they have no quarrel with the American people, only with Trump himself.  They also posted a list of properties owned by him.
> 
> So yes, no matter how much you want to play the victim on his behalf, Donald Trump has proven himself unequivocally to be America's biggest piece of shit.  I say we air mail him straight to Tehran, with or without a parachute, and this whole conflict would end just like that.  The American people have far more in common with Iranian citizens than they do with the billionaires attempting to send them to their deaths.  No war but class war.


Tbf this one ain't really "on" Trump. Its been in the making for awhile now. He's just the fat guy that walked on the wrong side of the teetering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jan 7, 2020)

I really hope that he will remove from the office permanent. Even all presidents and etc are the corrupt. They all sucks! War will never end. Never. Hatred existed period! No love! Most humans are DUMB human beings!


----------



## WorldOfNerds (Jan 7, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Third.
> 
> Russia.


nope. they are close behind tho


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 7, 2020)

WorldOfNerds said:


> nope. they are close behind tho


Kind of. As far as nuclear arsenal, we're neck in neck however Russia still uses small payload tactical nukes of 100 kilotons or less. We decommissioned those about 5 years ago and only use strategic nukes, or SSBM/ICBM's. They have around 6500 total units and US has about 6200. As far as other military assets, USA still pulls ahead in total units and total value. Troop count, America again pulls ahead.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 7, 2020)

brickmii82 said:


> Kind of. As far as nuclear arsenal, we're neck in neck however Russia still uses small payload tactical nukes of 100 kilotons or less. We decommissioned those about 5 years ago and only use strategic nukes, or SSBM/ICBM's. They have around 6500 total units and US has about 6200. As far as other military assets, USA still pulls ahead in total units and total value. Troop count, America again pulls ahead.


I concede. It's subjective, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## WorldOfNerds (Jan 7, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Third.
> 
> Russia.


if you need some evidence, heres a quote from:https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/russias-military-better-americas

"The short-lived US intervention in the Libyan civil war was also another mistake, whereas Russia’s long-term intervention in the Syrian civil war is expected to eventually pay for itself. Russia’s military is certainly weaker than that of the US, but ill-fated decisions across multiple administrations have steadily undermined American power." So yeah, US is stronger.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jan 7, 2020)

This was a disgraceful and reckless pledge of fealty to Israel who appreciates the gesture enough to "stay out of it".

https://www.foxnews.com/world/netanyahu-israel-soleimani

The entire pretext for the assassination is also horseshit. How about the attack in Kenya which killed three Americans including an actual serviceman, not just contractors, and garnered nary a tweet from President Cheeto?

https://apnews.com/65926ee82091f779d28d6a9644fb739f


----------



## Xzi (Jan 7, 2020)

brickmii82 said:


> Tbf this one ain't really "on" Trump. Its been in the making for awhile now. He's just the fat guy that walked on the wrong side of the teetering.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état


It's true that the US and CIA have been messing with Iran's internal affairs for what amounts to several lifetimes, but the 2015 nuclear nonproliferation agreement had the relationship between our two countries on fairly stable ground.  It was air tight and both were getting what they wanted from it, all we had to do was stay the course and let Iran work out its own internal struggles.  Instead Trump tore up the agreement, not because there was anything wrong with the terms of it, but solely because it had Obama's signature on it.  Then we started placing new sanctions on Iran, and tensions slowly started to mount again.  The man is petty, small, and driven entirely by ego.  Soleimani's assassination was simply the moment his stupidity transitioned from laughable to dangerous for us all, Americans and Iranians alike.



Glyptofane said:


> This was a disgraceful and reckless pledge of fealty to Israel who appreciates the gesture enough to "stay out of it".


Yep, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the two countries who stand to gain the most from the US conducting a proxy war on their behalf.  Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists like Trump's evangelical supporters are able to relate with Zionists and ISIS far more than with the peaceful citizens of any Western democracy, so they will support this war no matter how much blood is spilled.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Jan 8, 2020)

Rockets have apparently been fired from Iran into a US base ... hopefully trump doesn't take this too far

https://www.rt.com/news/477674-alasad-airbase-rockets-iraq/


----------



## Xzi (Jan 8, 2020)

RaptorDMG said:


> Rockets have apparently been fired from Iran into a US base ... hopefully trump doesn't take this too far
> 
> https://www.rt.com/news/477674-alasad-airbase-rockets-iraq/


Here we fucking go.  Lord Farquaad Trump is preparing to give a speech in response tonight.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 8, 2020)

i aggree with xzi fuck the human race at this point kill em off for their own stupidity

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

just think when he does get out pretty sure he'll be in prison after that and hopefully get the needle


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 8, 2020)

Xzi said:


> It's true that the US and CIA have been messing with Iran's internal affairs for what amounts to several lifetimes, but the 2015 nuclear nonproliferation agreement had the relationship between our two countries on fairly stable ground.  It was air tight and both were getting what they wanted from it, all we had to do was stay the course and let Iran work out its own internal struggles.  Instead Trump tore up the agreement, not because there was anything wrong with the terms of it, but solely because it had Obama's signature on it.  Then we started placing new sanctions on Iran, and tensions slowly started to mount again.  The man is petty, small, and driven entirely by ego.  Soleimani's assassination was simply the moment his stupidity transitioned from laughable to dangerous for us all, Americans and Iranians alike.
> 
> 
> Yep, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the two countries who stand to gain the most from the US conducting a proxy war on their behalf.  Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists like Trump's evangelical supporters are able to relate with Zionists and ISIS far more than with the peaceful citizens of any Western democracy, so they will support this war no matter how much blood is spilled.


About as airtight an international relationship as China and Japan. They (justly imo) loathe us. Perhaps not hate, but it’s certainly not a welcoming tone.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 8, 2020)

Looks like we were fortunate for now and avoided any casualties in Iran's retaliatory missile strikes.  It's also possible they were only trying to cause structural damage, IE fire warning shots.  Hopefully Trump takes advantage of this opportunity to de-escalate the entire conflict, but my capacity for giving him the benefit of the doubt ran dry long ago.



brickmii82 said:


> About as airtight an international relationship as China and Japan. They (justly imo) loathe us. Perhaps not hate, but it’s certainly not a welcoming tone.


I meant that the nuclear nonproliferation agreement was air tight, "stable" was the most I said of our relationship with Iran.  Certainly not "friendly," but for quite a while they were at least more preoccupied with internal struggles than with focusing on their hatred for America.  That changed with the introduction of new sanctions and the assassination of Soleimani.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 8, 2020)

hell you guys don't live near 5 freaking bases within a 15 mile radius prime target for iran


----------



## wartutor (Jan 8, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Looks like we were fortunate for now and avoided any casualties in Iran's retaliatory missile strikes.  It's also possible they were only trying to cause structural damage, IE fire warning shots.  Hopefully Trump takes advantage of this opportunity to de-escalate the entire conflict, but my capacity for giving him the benefit of the doubt ran dry long ago.
> 
> 
> I meant that the nuclear nonproliferation agreement was air tight, "stable" was the most I said of our relationship with Iran.  Certainly not "friendly," but for quite a while they were at least more preoccupied with internal struggles than with focusing on their hatred for America.  That changed with the introduction of new sanctions and the assassination of Soleimani.



Soleimani's direct actions led to his death. He has been on a list for years and should of been taken out way before this. At what point do you decide that a persons death is better than allowing him to continue plotting and killing others. Trump made a hard decision but at least he is standing behind it instead of just threatening and talking shit. While allowing him to continue. I myself cant stand politicians and anything that voting now and days brings mainly due to the fact that all parties are just spoon fed corrupt rich fucks that deserve nothing more than to have that stripped away and forced to work like there employees. But that is another discussion. Bottom line is trump had him killed...good...worlds better off without him. Any radical group thinks other wise take them out too. If trump wanted to do something to bring attention to his election then he would of ordered that kim wong (what ever his fuckin name is) in charge of north korea executed and proceeded to try and free those people.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jan 8, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Looks like we were fortunate for now and avoided any casualties in Iran's retaliatory missile strikes.  It's also possible they were only trying to cause structural damage, IE fire warning shots.  Hopefully Trump takes advantage of this opportunity to de-escalate the entire conflict, but my capacity for giving him the benefit of the doubt ran dry long ago.
> 
> 
> I meant that the nuclear nonproliferation agreement was air tight, "stable" was the most I said of our relationship with Iran.  Certainly not "friendly," but for quite a while they were at least more preoccupied with internal struggles than with focusing on their hatred for America.  That changed with the introduction of new sanctions and the assassination of Soleimani.


I wonder how morally bankrupt it'd be to form a betting pool based on the week they test the first nuke.


----------



## Flame (Jan 8, 2020)

damn its all popping off now.

i really hope this isnt the start of a War. Full blown war.


----------



## DeoNaught (Jan 8, 2020)

So I might of heard wrong, but wasn't the dude and his men planning to take down some officials? or some other important people? this is he said she said, pretty sure I heard it from my sister, but I thought it was just whoever shot first situation(e;i both sides were planning to kill someone, just one side got to it before the other side)

IDK if this was an election stunt, I'm probably too Naive right now, but wouldn't there be other things to do for re-election? that would fair better for him and the US. Even if he is blind, I think he does love America, he's just doing it really wrong.


----------



## Condarkness_XY (Jan 8, 2020)

DeoNaught said:


> So I might of heard wrong, but wasn't the dude and his men planning to take down some officials? or some other important people? this is he said she said, pretty sure I heard it from my sister, but I thought it was just whoever shot first situation(e;i both sides were planning to kill someone, just one side got to it before the other side)
> 
> IDK if this was an election stunt, I'm probably too Naive right now, but wouldn't there be other things to do for re-election? that would fair better for him and the US. Even if he is blind, I think he does love America, he's just doing it really wrong.



You think Trump cares about America??

Here's the reality. He doesn't. He does care about money and only money. He will anything to get money. Did I mention money. He is a collosal idiot who doesn't give a dam. About anyone or anything other than himself.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 8, 2020)

DeoNaught said:


> So I might of heard wrong, but wasn't the dude and his men planning to take down some officials? or some other important people? this is he said she said, pretty sure I heard it from my sister, but I thought it was just whoever shot first situation(e;i both sides were planning to kill someone, just one side got to it before the other side)


This would be an ambiguous thing even for a neutral government. With this one, you know in advance they're going to lie if it happens not to be true. And even if it's partially true, you can predict Trump waving some documents and repeating some stupid mantra every chance he gets (I can almost hear him "We've taken out Soleimani...who was a bad man...a very bad man...because he was planning to kill <person/group>. Here are documents showcasing exactly that. Therefore, I've managed to save <person/group>. I brought peace. I...<and so on>").

...but that's just a hypothesis based on earlier events. The absence of stupid Trump wannabe-hypnosis isn't proof that it's a lie. For that, it's better to use Occam's razor and ask what's more likely.
Soleimani has been an enemy of the US for many years (again: even W. Bush was given the "comedy last option" to take him out...so he's been on a watchlist for at least ten years now). If Trump really is about bringing peace, Soleimani should have less inclination than ever to plan something evil, let alone execute that something, right? So...that already tells us Trump isn't about bringing peace foremost (not much of a surprise, there).
Next up: does he has more reason to plot an action? Answer...yes. That one-sided cancellation of the nuclear agreement by Trump the USA and increased sanctions against Iran isn't going to make him happy.

But again: what would be his most effective move? Would that be A) sabotaging the oil production lines from the shadows, thus thwarting the global oil industry...or B) killing Americans, thus ensuring that both the USA is pissed off at them as well as losing any potential allies it might have or hope to get in the rest of the world ?

Occam's razor says he's far more likely to be the one either behind those earlier sabotage acts, or otherwise planning them than actually planning to provoke killing US citizens.




DeoNaught said:


> IDK if this was an election stunt, I'm probably too Naive right now, but wouldn't there be other things to do for re-election?


For a normal president: absolutely. But this is a guy that broke most if not all of his campaign promises (hint: Mexico hasn't payed for a wall), needlessly brought an economic war with China, distanced or downright insulted all sorts of allies both within and outside the country, has the longest government downtime in recent history, is part of so many scandals that actually solving them is still on the 'to do' list (note: it might be up for debate whether or not Trump ordered it, but it remains a FACT that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But that is hardly if at all addressed) and is actually impeached and on the verge of being removed from office.
Sorry, but you don't recover from this sort of negative publicity (heck...even Nixon was more popular when he resigned). At least not by normal standards.

At this point, many will point out the cult-movie 'Wag the dog', wherein a couple spin doctors fabricate a fictional war to deflect the attention from a sexual scandal the president's involved in. They do it so masterfully that at the end, the guy gets re-elected.
The thing is: while believable and would something many see Trump consider, I think he's just too dumb for this sort of Machiavellian play. Or rather: he's surrounded himself with yes-men rather than people smart enough to properly cook up something like this.



chrisrlink said:


> hell you guys don't live near 5 freaking bases within a 15 mile radius prime target for iran


Erm...as someone who only knows USA from movies and numbers on military spending...doesn't the USA have at least one military base about every 5 miles?


----------



## wartutor (Jan 8, 2020)

I cant wait till he gets re elected for another term. Piss off all these trump hating people. Never in the history of the usa has there been people screaming impeach since before the president took office. Be funny as hell if he won a 2nd term


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 8, 2020)

I live in Norfolk we have Langley AFB, ft eustis Army base, Oceana, Norfolk Naval base and several others, not only that but we have another target in the fasinity Surry nuclear Power station so yeah i'm nervious one or 2 sucessful missle strikes could cripple the east coast's defenses

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> I cant wait till he gets re elected for another term. Piss off all these trump hating people. Never in the history of the usa has there been people screaming impeach since before the president took office. Be funny as hell if he won a 2nd term


so your basicly voting for a war and countless deaths? this isn't afghanistan we're talking about we just pissed off a country with nukes or will be obtaining


----------



## RaptorDMG (Jan 8, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I live in Norfolk we have Langley AFB, ft eustis Army base, Oceana, Norfolk Naval base and several others, not only that but we have another target in the fasinity Surry nuclear Power station so yeah i'm nervious one or 2 sucessful missle strikes could cripple the east coast's defenses
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Irans missiles only have range for Europe so it's only your allies that will get hit so who cares about starting a war and if Iran doesn't have nuke estimates put it at 12 monthes for them to get them if they start now with all their resources


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 8, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Soleimani's direct actions led to his death. He has been on a list for years and should of been taken out way before this. At what point do you decide that a persons death is better than allowing him to continue plotting and killing others.


He was actually on the ground fighting ISIS, making him a war hero (compared to keyboard hero Trump).
Whether he used proxies in Iraq to attack US targets has not been proven as my trust in American intelligence is "slightly" hampered.
But let's say - for the sake of argument - that he has been plotting with and using proxies to attack American targets.
How is that any different from the US supporting 50 shades of Jihad in order to get rid of - for example - Assad?

The only difference is that America is foreign to those lands. It's as if Russia, China or Iran were to meddle in Latin America.
America changed the game by attacking an official. 
BTW the equivalent of Trump attacking Iran itself after today's rockets attack (which he had warned of before it) would be Iran committing acts of terror in the US, not somewhere in the Middle East.



wartutor said:


> If trump wanted to do something to bring attention to his election then he would of ordered that kim wong (what ever his fuckin name is) in charge of north korea executed and proceeded to try and free those people.


Yeah, let's hope Russia frees your people by bombing the shit out of America. Unfortunately this combination of arrogance and ignorance is not unique.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 8, 2020)

if anyone dies from this once trump is removed or exits normally (highly doubt that unless the GOP is that fucking stupid to keep a warcriminal in power) he should be charged with X # of capital murder (depending on how many die) and be bubba's bitch for the rest of his life (death penilty is too lienent in this case imo)


----------



## Glyptofane (Jan 8, 2020)

Let's not forget how hawkish Clinton was on Syria and Iran. This entire situation may have been unavoidable no matter who was elected. At least she was honest about it, I guess, where Trump has now betrayed a good portion of his base after appearing to run on anti-war lies. Attacking Israel's enemies and pushing to ban benign substances seem to be issues both parties agree on. You can expect the hostilities to continue if a Democrat is elected. Depending how this plays out, I really believe this has the potential to damage Trump more than the impeachment fiasco.


----------



## leon315 (Jan 8, 2020)

This a desperate attempt to raise his popularity since the general's opinion started to shift away when Impeachment began. 



IncredulousP said:


> Third.
> 
> Russia.


Trump could be the 4th: NIXON after the Watergate scandal had 100% of chance to be impeached, but he later resigned first.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 8, 2020)

So the President just basically said "nobody got hurt last night and you got your save-face moment so ok we'll let it slide but don't fuck with us anymore. We're willing to work out a deal for your country going forward but we're all out of patience with the proxy terror war bullshit."

I guess now you guys are going to call him a coward for not dropping the bombs.


----------



## notimp (Jan 8, 2020)

Question would be, did Trump kill a dude as an election stunt, wouldnt it?

"The justifications for immanent danger are razor thin", right?  But thats just for the rest of the world. The US is usually blind on the killing foreign people eye. Because they world police. Someone has to do it... Kinda...


----------



## Xzi (Jan 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> So the President just basically said "nobody got hurt last night and you got your save-face moment so ok we'll let it slide but don't fuck with us anymore. We're willing to work out a deal for your country going forward but we're all out of patience with the proxy terror war bullshit."
> 
> I guess now you guys are going to call him a coward for not dropping the bombs.


No, ultimately I'm quite happy with the outcome, it's a good thing Iran was willing to show restraint.  Now I only worry that any random attack in or around the Middle East will be blamed on Iran without evidence, and we'll be right back to the brink of war again.  It's certainly not going to be easy to get the muzzle back on a lot of Trump's more rabid pro-war supporters, either.  But such is life with an impulsive manchild as president, c'est la vie.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jan 8, 2020)

Why is "he'll be removed from office soon," even an option?  We all know that the Republican controlled Senate isn't going vote him out, like that isn't even a remote possibility.


----------



## Scar557 (Jan 9, 2020)

Afaik right now he's doing nothing, trying to get away from the war, which is funny because anti-Trumps are going from " He's provoking Iran as an election stunt " to " He's not provoking Iran as an election stunt ".

Bruh.


----------



## Gon Freecss (Jan 9, 2020)

edit: oopsie! so many do-nothing democrats got triggered by my post ​


----------



## Glyptofane (Jan 9, 2020)

Gon Freecss said:


>


That timeline is missing all provocations against Iran by belligerents near and far as well as at least 40 more years of incidents.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 9, 2020)

Glyptofane said:


> That timeline is missing all provocations against Iran by belligerents near and far as well as at least 40 more years of incidents.


And yet it still has the main point everyone jumping on the "its trump's fault" bandwagon bunch of fuckin sheep.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Jan 9, 2020)

wartutor said:


> And yet it still has the main point everyone jumping on the "its trump's fault" bandwagon bunch of fuckin sheep.


you may want to re-read what he just posted.
No one is gonna defend Iran.
quite frankly i think the issue here is that the general US population has no appetite for yet another armed conflict. unless you are craving our country rack up a couple of more trillion in debt


----------



## wartutor (Jan 9, 2020)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> you may want to re-read what he just posted.
> No one is gonna defend Iran.
> quite frankly i think the issue here is that the general US population has no appetite for yet another armed conflict. unless you are craving our country rack up a couple of more trillion in debt


True. But hell whats a few more trillion when our country gives 400m to Ukraine (not to mention all the money we give to other nations that isnt constantly talked about) instead of spending it on there own poor and hungry. My main question is wheres my wall. Lol


----------



## Rioluwott (Jan 9, 2020)

wartutor said:


> True. But hell whats a few more trillion when our country gives 400m to Ukraine (not to mention all the money we give to other nations that isnt constantly talked about) instead of spending it on there own poor and hungry. My main question is wheres my wall. Lol


if this gets worse i want that wall too


----------



## Xzi (Jan 9, 2020)

wartutor said:


> My main question is wheres my wall. Lol





Rioluwott said:


> if this gets worse i want that wall too


Democratic Socialists: "maybe we should spend tax dollars on getting our citizens universal healthcare and tuition-free college."
GOP/MAGAts: "let's spend all our tax dollars on a wall in the middle of the fucking desert which will be completely decayed and useless inside of five years."

This wouldn't even be a debate in any country with a half-decent education system.  It never ceases to amaze me how petty and spiteful some people can be.  You would deny *all *of us the benefits of living in a wealthy, first-world country just to _maybe_ keep out a few brown people seeking refuge.  And then you don't even bother to call out the true source of the problem: neocon/neolib corporations continuing to hire illegal migrant workers en masse without shame.  Nothing in this country will ever improve as long as our only god is money.


----------



## Rioluwott (Jan 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Democratic Socialists: "maybe we should spend tax dollars on getting our citizens universal healthcare and tuition-free college."
> GOP/MAGAts: "let's spend all our tax dollars on a wall in the middle of the fucking desert which will be completely decayed and useless inside of five years."
> 
> This wouldn't even be a debate in any country with a half-decent education system.  It never ceases to amaze me how petty and spiteful some people can be.  You would deny *all *of us the benefits of living in a wealthy, first-world country just to _maybe_ keep out a few brown people seeking refuge.  And then you don't even bother to call out the true source of the problem: neocon/neolib corporations continuing to hire illegal migrant workers en masse without shame.


i was joking if you couldnt tell
since im mexican and i dont want any kind of conflict from another country to reach my own,
of course the idea of a wall that large is simply idiotic and people thinking is somehow plausible (and of top of that trying a third world country to pay for it without any kind of previous agreement) just show how ignorant they can be.
lets hope this doesnt turn worse and we can live a peaceful life since problems between  governments are not ours, if a war starts it would be the citizens the ones in combat and not the ones that actually started it


----------



## Xzi (Jan 9, 2020)

Rioluwott said:


> i was joking if you couldnt tell


Sorry, I did see that your flag was Mexico, but sometimes people set the wrong one.  Obviously this is an issue that rustles my jimmies a bit.


----------



## Rioluwott (Jan 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Sorry, I did see that your flag was Mexico, but sometimes people set the wrong one.  Obviously this is an issue that rustles my jimmies a bit.


no problem it happens to everyone


----------



## WeedZ (Jan 9, 2020)

Wait till theres a draft. They'll need the wall to keep americans here.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 9, 2020)

Gon Freecss said:


>


Edited for clarity. While I don't presume it'll convince you, at least it might provide some insight as to why almost everyone knows that Trump starts this mess: Iran has consequently denied all the allegations of the US. And it has to be said: the US doesn't exactly bring much evidence to the table either. It's like they know how media works:

December 27th: *a bombing happens on K-1 air base*
Pentagon: oh noes! It's the Kata'ib Hezbollah! They're Iranian-backed, so we're under attack by Iran!!!!! 
Kata'ib Hezbollah: erm...no? We were at home drinking tea, mate. We didn't bomb anyone.
Pentagon: ha! Good luck getting YOUR opinion on fox news, buddy. 

Granted: this sort of parody is hardly more helpful than blatantly telling one-sided stories. But we've seen what happens if you blindly follow warmongering. And W. Bush at least _attempted _to bring some evidence as to why he was right into thinking Iraq was the enemy.


----------



## wartutor (Jan 9, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Democratic Socialists: "maybe we should spend tax dollars on getting our citizens universal healthcare and tuition-free college."
> GOP/MAGAts: "let's spend all our tax dollars on a wall in the middle of the fucking desert which will be completely decayed and useless inside of five years."
> 
> This wouldn't even be a debate in any country with a half-decent education system.  It never ceases to amaze me how petty and spiteful some people can be.  You would deny *all *of us the benefits of living in a wealthy, first-world country just to _maybe_ keep out a few brown people seeking refuge.  And then you don't even bother to call out the true source of the problem: neocon/neolib corporations continuing to hire illegal migrant workers en masse without shame.  Nothing in this country will ever improve as long as our only god is money.


Yeah cause thats all i want is a wall  lol guess my sarcasm was lost in text


----------



## Gon Freecss (Jan 9, 2020)

It’s just a matter of time before you start hearing some say that it’s Trump’s fault that #Iran made a mistake and shot down a commercial airliner.— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 9, 2020


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 10, 2020)

I wonder why Iran would use land-to-air missiles when attacking US bases. Let's see whether it was Iran. But Trump is indeed partly to blame if it is the case.
If you through a stone at a guy and he in turns throws a stone which hits a third person, you are not innocent.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Jan 10, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I wonder why Iran would use land-to-air missiles when attacking US bases. Let's see whether it was Iran. But Trump is indeed partly to blame if it is the case.
> If you through a stone at a guy and he in turns throws a stone which hits a third person, you are not innocent.


They likely turned air defenses on so that if the US attacked back they would be ready but we need to wait for Ukraine to be able to investigate the site and determine the cause


----------



## notimp (Jan 10, 2020)

Gon Freecss said:


> edit: oopsie! so many do-nothing democrats got triggered by my post ​


Misleading. Post sources. When attacking or seizing oil tankers, they probably do it, because they used seaways they have a claim to and didnt pay off officials.

Drones usually are shot down, when they are over your own country - illegally. (But thats not even a proper international incident these days, since they are fast and cheap enough that this happens so seldomly that no one really cares. And of course the are there to bomb military sites in Iran, and to do surveillance.

The attack in September could not be attributed to Iran, and they denied involvement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Abqaiq–Khurais_attack

The attack in December on US milit. bases was spearheaded by an iraqi militia which is believed to be financed by Iran ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_K-1_Air_Base_attack ) and was preceded by a US build up of troops in the region ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Persian_Gulf_crisis ).

The embassy was occupied by protesters (/militia supporters) following another US event (airstrike) in the spiral of escalation: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/supporters-of-iran-backed-militia-storm-the-us-embassy-in-iraq.html
(There where no recorded deaths there. (?))

EFFING RIGHTWING NUTCASES POSTING SHITTY PR 2 RIAL UP IDIOTS FOR THEIR MONOTHEISTIC WORLD VIEW - still continuing in this forum in 2020.

Whats roughly happening is the following. US doesnt own shit there. Officially. US has no rights whatsoever to intervene on their own terms, militarily. Killing people in 'not your own country' - with an airstrike nevertheless is an international crime in peace times. US arent acknowledging the jurisdiction of any important international law tribunals on war crimes - so they arent acknowledging any international law, or any judges when it comes to what they want to do militarily.

Historically they had contracts with Saudi Arabia to "protect them" (major oil supplier), and of course they have a satellite state in the region with Israel, that was founded as recently as 1948.

Under Obama and Trump, the US has mounted efforts to slowly withdraw from the region, because they had become less dependent on foreign oil imports, and ruling by bombs is expensive.

Saudi Arabia especially, has fallen from grace in the public perception in the US. Which is usually caused by PR (or the lack of PR  ) and usually isn't entirely by chance either.

Iran was rumored to be in military talks with Saudi Arabia. Israel freaked for the past two years, and the US very much had to redouble their efforts to keep powerstructures as they are in the region.

No one wants another war there. No one (europeans neither) want Iran to dominate the region.

Honcho not so bright big guy - airstrikerrrd an Irani general, while they were visiting Iraq while on a military diplomatic mission. Entirely illegal, entirely not in self defense, probably provoked (because high level talks between the party that fell from US' graces recently and iranian military).

But, as the US doesnt acknowledge the international criminal court and can "but I have the bigger gun" pretty much anyone in the world - we call those "extralegal killings".

To no openly commit an offense that would be answerable with actually going to war - you have to say "immanent danger", or else even your own people would start to ask questions.

Its entirely useless to ask - "who is to blame in this case", because we are talking about structural, military oppression of an entire region since the 1940s - by a foreign international power. But everything is cool, because it brought oil to the western nations at a stable and not overly atrocious price. And if it wouldnt have for the past 60 years, our economies would have collapsed within half a year. 

Trump still an idiot for bombing away a diplomat from Iran, in Iraq - unprovoked. I mean - what happened to intrigue? Everything now a dick measurement contest?


----------



## eyeliner (Jan 10, 2020)

notimp said:


> Trump still an idiot for bombing away a diplomat from Iran, in Iraq - unprovoked. I mean - what happened to intrigue? Every thing now a dick measurement contest?


We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.

And yes, it is a measuring test. Trump's USA outright killed a military mastermind just because:
They could
A message needed to be conveyed

In my apolitical mind, Trump's USA removed a valuable Iranian asset, basically the head of a very large chicken. In anyway you put it, Iran doesn't stand a chance now and can't go to war peeing missiles.

They lost a major strategist (some claim he was the best at it), and their enemy is right beside their border, in countries they can't just level without getting a military backlash.

See it this way:
What can Iran do? Bomb american bases right? They did. They were basically pee shooters. They can't invade Syria to tackle the americans head on, and can't surely bomb america from far away.

Iran is far from america, but america is just out of the border, with a whole lot of ground to bomb away.


----------



## notimp (Jan 10, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.


Partly true. He was military. But rumored to be on a military diplomatic mission. Some people say thats also not true, because he (as a general) would have been an unlikely candidate for those particular talks, but hey - high level brass has to meet up outside their own countries at times too. To talk.

US version is, that he was outside the country to plan more attacks. Evidence.. well.. The US senate oversight comitee saw none - and was not amused. (They should have had been presented with some a few days ago (under secrecy clause), some of them then went public and told the press, the meeting was an insult and a joke, they would have basically been told not to ask further questions).

Maybe diplomatic mission of the general killed is a lie a s well, who knows. The parties there are in conflict there for decades. Point being - you dont hear every day, that a miltary general of a country is bombed into thin air, while visiting a neighboring country. While none of the parties are officially at war with each other.

Also Kane from C&C was a fictional character. Disney villains usually don't exist in real life. And if you have accepted, that people should be killed because of their character - you haven't understood your "tradition of law" (in the west). 

If you are made to think, that you do anything - because of a "very bad dude" - you were on the receiving end of propaganda.

'Evil' people with power - usually rectify them doing evil stuff by a concept called 'the lesser of two evils'. They usually don't want to go to sleep thinking, that they are evil either. Hence - the "Disney villain" (evil person) usually doesnt exist. (In a leading position in institutions - because they usually are supposed to filter out the picture book deranged type of person.)


----------



## eyeliner (Jan 10, 2020)

Yes, evil people do exist, my friend. I love your ignorance, don't change.

I will keep fighting for you to keep your ignorance.


----------



## RaptorDMG (Jan 10, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.
> 
> And yes, it is a measuring test. Trump's USA outright killed a military mastermind just because:
> They could
> ...



Iran never stood a chance against America in the first place even with Souleimani.

If this had escalated (and hopefully it doesn't in future) Iran would like have targeted critical infrastructure to the US and the world in general instead of hitting a couple of buildings they would target oil refineries, docks, and airfields. 

This would probably slow down the influx of US forces but the big damage would likely be economic as a lot of the world rely on oil from the Middle East so Iran may not be able to strike American citizens directly but they can still hit them if they want to.

As for invading Syria I doubt their goal would be invasion and more to kick out the US forces that already invaded Syria illegally.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 11, 2020)

Absolutely an election stunt and won't be the last this cycle either


----------



## notimp (Jan 11, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> Yes, evil people do exist, my friend. I love your ignorance, don't change.
> 
> I will keep fighting for you to keep your ignorance.


Strangely enough, I've looked into that as well. Most people who are willing to go to extremes have been exposed to those sort of traumatic events in their past as well - have been desensitized, or have less quarrals wanting to re-experience traumatic events, even if they induce them themselves. Usually those people are what you'd call 'burned' and dont get very high in bureaucratic ladders.

Then there are psychopths, and sadists (can be 'released' in a societally acceptable way these days) - and again, the bureaucratic process usually is designed to flush them out as well.

(When I was young and in the military, we were used as role playing extras in UN peace keeping mission training, where we would interrupt convoys haggle with the actual soldiers in training, and steal some of their stuff openly - if some of them lost their temper, we would report it, and those cats would be axed from being allowed to go abroad. Just as a small tidbit.)

Then there is a concept called division of power, or four eyes principal, or.. - so you get even less erratic decision making as a result.

Decision processes of dictators (where power is handed over in family succession) are a little different, but their internal logic isn't that of a madman either.

Also - there is a huge sensitivity gap between western societies, and lets say Iran, where people get killed every week at times, in acts of terror, or opposition. So boundaries extend.

But every time - you are told, that you have to get behind an act of lets call it counter terrorism, as the public, you are usually lied to to garner consent.


Now - there is an issue, where sensibilities clash. ('Why terrorism works' (I dont want to explain that)) f.e. and even an issue with sensibilities becoming warped over time (constante state of terror, or wars).

But I can assure you, that everyone wants to sleep at night - so their self images arent those of a villain. Villain is what gets constructed as a societal image.

And in crafting that, you have leeway.
--

Decision model of an absolutistic ruler: "I know whats best for my society" (decision processes delegated), smaller evil to kill off the rebels in one swoop. Immanent danger > more casualties allowed. Less precise weapons, more civil victims (there always are, there are no 'chirurgical strikes'). Greenlight it to get a war faster to be over, or to prevent getting toppled. Women and children die. You are coined a villain.

In wars different logic applies, there is also shock and awe used as an actual tool - but usually not as a long term strategic decision by higher ups. Long term oppression (think Ghaza), that might change as well. Logic is always "the lesser evil", or "dehumanizing "the enemy" (not thinking of them as humans anymore)".

In neither case the Disney Villain principle applies. If someone is baiting you with "good versus evil" distinguishing by "dudes" - they are usually engaging in propaganda. Humans have the propensity to become evil in extreme circumstances, and forget about it subsequently (dealing with trauma). Its usually not "a guy" thats the issue anywhere.

The same as it is usually not "a guy" that you should trust in, or that knows what to do, or that has to be protected from criticism.

Once you see, that the enemy is human as well - its not as easy to kill off a dude, by pronouncing that 'he was bad" - which coincidently, they always were in the end. That or marthyrs - isnt that convenient.

And there isnt a society on earth that would pronounce a psychopath to a position of "real" power, if they can help it.

Also read Hannah Arendt on "banality of evil". Its the same thing Freud came to grasp with in his later years. Its the propensity of "normal" humans to become evil situationally thats causing the issue.


----------



## notimp (Jan 12, 2020)

Repairing relations.



> The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages.


The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages. https://t.co/Vu08PyNLe9 via @WSJ— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) January 11, 2020


(via fefe (german blogger))


----------



## Hanafuda (Jan 12, 2020)

x65943 said:


> Absolutely an election stunt and won't be the last this cycle either




What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce _isn't_ an election stunt.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce _isn't_ an election stunt.


Full disclosure I have never voted Democrat in my life

Just because I think what Trump is doing is stupid does not mean I suddenly love the left

I voted R-Money in 2012 and Johnson in 2016


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 12, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I cant wait till he gets re elected for another term. Piss off all these trump hating people. Never in the history of the usa has there been people screaming impeach since before the president took office. Be funny as hell if he won a 2nd term


Literally, Republicans were calling to impeach Hillary before the elections. Don't be an idiot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> Full disclosure I have never voted Democrat in my life
> 
> Just because I think what Trump is doing is stupid does not mean I suddenly love the left
> 
> I voted R-Money in 2012 and Johnson in 2016


That's unfortunate to read. You seemed like a very sensible person. At least you're not blind to how ridiculous this whole shitshow of having a moronic traitor for president is.


----------



## x65943 (Jan 12, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Literally, Republicans were calling to impeach Hillary before the elections. Don't be an idiot.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Imho the Republican party before Trump was very similar to the Democrats before Sanders

A bunch of neocons trying to slice up the world

You know Bush and Clinton are actually good pals?

The polarization of US politics is new - and honestly in the past you didn't get much difference voting R or D

Now of course everything is very different. I didn't vote Trump and the Republicans have alienated me.

I voted Libertarian last time because I didn't agree with the stance of either large party.

Do I wish Hillary had won? Yeah she would have no doubt been a better president. For starters she wouldn't have alienated all of our closest allies.

You know - what do you find wrong about the Libertarians? Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I think in practice it could be a good system.

Anyhow - in the end I think conservative and liberal policies in regards to the economy both work in different ways - and the most important thing is to keep growth. That means times for spending and time for saving.

The last thing I want to say is this. You should never find it unfortunate that our views diverge. We should encourage independent thought - telling someone you are disappointed in them for their beliefs either leads to alienation or coerced thought policing. I don't think any less of you just because you vote differently.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 12, 2020)

x65943 said:


> You know - what do you find wrong about the Libertarians? Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I think in practice it could be a good system.


Libertarianism is an idealism that works under the assumption that every product and service has equal ease of access and great amount of competition, which doesn't exist in our capitalist society nor is a free market applicable to many problems. It really is just "diet conservatism" to catch those aware enough of how corrupt the Republican party is from going left.

It is unfortunate because there are mountains upon mountains of evidence that point out how destructive Republican and Libertarian actions are on the stability, longevity, and prosperity of a Nation.

Now, I'm going to be honest, I'm not a fan of Democrats. I don't call myself a Democrat. But lesser of two evils, right?

I understand appreciating and accepting opposing ideas. Hell, I downright agree with some conservative points, especially around sexuality and gender (not the anti-gay parts), but the majority of talking points
 in conservative circles promote fascism, intolerance, short-term growth over long-term stability, racism, elitism, social hierarchies, nepotism, appeal to emotion than facts, and the list goes on. Fueled by ignorance, misinformation or lack of information, mental/emotional neglect, hatred, greed.

Look where we are. Pointless wars in the middle East, found to have been (surprise surprise) a waste of trillions of dollars and the lives of many, many people. Wealth inequality is insane, mental health treatment is low and many are ignorant to how it even affects the population, school shootings are frequent, alt-right domestic terrorism is rising, history is repeating itself on a trend toward fascism. This needs to end, but it's not going to. People don't like facts, they like having their feelings expressed. They want those easy emotional reinforcements from the tension in their minds repeated to them. You know the irony? This is mental illness, and if more of the population learned this, accepted it, and got affordable treatment, not only would they listen to reason, but corruption wouldn't be so easy to spread.

So yes, I find it unfortunate that amid the chaos lies a laid track toward further pain and suffering, for all of us equally.

https://trofire.com/2019/12/23/neuroscientist-reveals-why-trump-supporters-fall-for-his-lies/


----------



## Viri (Jan 12, 2020)

RaptorDMG said:


> Iran never stood a chance against America in the first place even with Souleimani.
> 
> If this had escalated (and hopefully it doesn't in future) Iran would like have targeted critical infrastructure to the US and the world in general instead of hitting a couple of buildings they would target oil refineries, docks, and airfields.
> 
> ...


Iran is a double edged sword. Iran is very hard to invade, because of the mountains, but they can be blockaded easily, and their oil fields are on the wrong side of the mountains.



Spoiler


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 13, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce _isn't_ an election stunt.


The only reason that happens in this period is because Trump only committed this crime after Biden decided to run for president. Sure, if Trump pressured Ukraine into opening an investigation on (Hunter) Biden before his father entered the race, it probably wouldn't have come to this. But either way: Trump can't just be excused of committed crimes just because everyone's considered subjective.

I also don't see how the democrats hope to win votes they don't already have with these trials. There's competition among the candidates, but not where it comes to Trump's antics. As such, the candidates diversify rather than just be the better alternative, which...erm...how to phrase this? I know you consider him a decent president...but that sentiment isn't shared in the democrat user space. Touting you'll be better than Trump isn't exactly much of an achievement and can be mocked easily (I can already hear saturday night jokes about it: "oh...so you'll only be involved in 1544 scandals? Now THAT's a relief!  ").

On the republican side, things are pretty different. Nobody wants to be seen voting for a crook, so the last thing you want the collective audience remember is that he committed fraude (which he is still actively trying not to face trial for). And if that's the last thing, then "standing firm against an Iranian threat" certainly sounds more appealing, even if it means sweeping under the rug who caused the threat in the first place..


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 13, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> .
> See it this way:
> What can Iran do? Bomb american bases right? They did. They were basically pee shooters. They can't invade Syria to tackle the americans head on, and can't surely bomb america from far away.
> 
> Iran is far from america, but america is just out of the border, with a whole lot of ground to bomb away.



Even without nuclear weapons, Iran could fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Bibi made clear that he had nothing to do with the killing of Soleimani. Seemed a bit scared.
The US can't invade Iran without ruining themselves, kind of like USSR in Afghanistan.
And they can't throw nukes at Iran. It would make the US an actual "supervillian state" and Russia trigger nervous.


----------



## eyeliner (Jan 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Even without nuclear weapons, Iran could fire thousands of rockets at Israel. Bibi made clear that he had nothing to do with the killing of Soleimani. Seemed a bit scared.
> The US can't invade Iran without ruining themselves, kind of like USSR in Afghanistan.
> And they can't throw nukes at Iran. It would make the US an actual "supervillian state" and Russia trigger nervous.


True, but aren't they all "No nukes!"? Nuclear weapons aren't really an issue.

There are worse ways to engage in war without total destruction. Economic sanctions, political lockout to neighboring countries, counter espionage here and there, political change, while being possibly cheaper but slower can also be effective with a minimal body count. Do not underestimate the power of hunger. Of a furious mob against the government (like Hong Kong).

All in all, there's a lot of options, and "bombs away" is only one of them.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 13, 2020)

eyeliner said:


> True, but aren't they all "No nukes!"? Nuclear weapons aren't really an issue.
> 
> There are worse ways to engage in war without total destruction. Economic sanctions, political lockout to neighboring countries, counter espionage here and there, political change, while being possibly cheaper but slower can also be effective with a minimal body count. Do not underestimate the power of hunger. Of a furious mob against the government (like Hong Kong).
> 
> All in all, there's a lot of options, and "bombs away" is only one of them.



The reckless killing of Soleimani and an Iraqi offical has made Iraq and Iran more united than ever. The USA have brought democracy to Iraq but don't give a damn of what its parliament and leader think, i.e. exposing their true intentions. Sanctions usually do not work and will only accelerate the need to find alternatives to the petrodollar (America's biggest weakness). Hong Kong is a different topic as it has more to do with an identity crisis. The youth in Iran used to somewhat like America, but recent years have changed that as well.


----------



## eyeliner (Jan 13, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The reckless killing of Soleimani and an Iraqi offical has made Iraq and Iran more united than ever. The USA have brought democracy to Iraq but don't give a damn of what its parliament and leader think, i.e. exposing their true intentions. Sanctions usually do not work and will only accelerate the need to find alternatives to the petrodollar (America's biggest weakness). Hong Kong is a different topic as it has more to do with an identity crisis. The youth in Iran used to somewhat like America, but recent years have changed that as well.


Recent events don't bode well for Iranian government.
- Bombing a civilian aircraft
- Tear gas and real bullets to end a protest

Give it time and the government will implode.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 13, 2020)

And you expect the new government to be friendly towards their former enemies? Assad is secular and still doesn't get along with the USA. Iraq is democratic...
You can only achieve a major shift in a population if you break them mentally and "re-educate" them, like it was done after World War 2 or if you have a severe split in society and make the other side gain political power. The former will not happen (I have explained why in my last post) and the latter does not apply to Iran. I'd say America is more split than Iran - maybe not yet on foreign policy but let's not forget that Trumps isolationism with regards to the Middle East was a major appeal to his base and in the far-left the support for Israel is much smaller than in the current establishment.


----------



## notimp (Jan 14, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> to catch those aware enough of how corrupt the Republican party is from going left.


Heavens.

They better go right then. And then right, left, right, straight ahead and then they are at the train station.

They certainly dont teach that bull, so where do you pick it up? Youtube algo again?

People on the right are more prone to absolutist believes. Absolutist regimes are more prone to corruption. Look it up. Not that the left would spread idiotic oversimplifications like 'you get more corrupt by going right' all day...


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jan 15, 2020)

In terms foreign policy and interventionism there seems to be no difference between left and right. This is true for the US as well as many European countries.


----------



## Pipistrele (Jan 15, 2020)

Whatever he's doing, I hope it's not going to kill us all in the process.


----------



## IncredulousP (Jan 17, 2020)

"President Donald Trump and the U.S. military had said there were no casualties after the strike on the Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq and a facility in its northern Kurdish region.

“While no U.S. service members were killed in the Jan. 8 Iranian attack on Al Asad air base, several were treated for concussion symptoms from the blast and are still being assessed,” Captain Bill Urban, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said in a statement." - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-usa-casualties-idUSKBN1ZG0AX


----------

