|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44079 Posts
On January 09 2020 02:33 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:25 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. The point is that this isn’t like catching Bin Laden. This is someone who was killed and then we were told how amazing it is that he’s been killed and how much the world is a better place for his death. The world cannot be a noticeably better place for his death if you had previously completely failed to notice his life. If you were blissfully unaware of his existence until last week it’s irrational to be happy at the news of his demise as if it lifted a cloud from your life. Your logic is that because his name wasn't all over national news means that he should not have been killed. Or someone shouldn't be happy about it. It's not like he wasn't on the US's radar for a long time. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-neither-bush-or-obama-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-2020-1Makes zero sense.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been killed because you hadn’t heard of him. That’s a ridiculous take on what I said. Why would defence policy be based on who you had heard of? I’m saying that individuals with no knowledge of his life celebrating his death is dumb.
|
On January 09 2020 02:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I will agree that the optics right now look good for trump. But mostly just because people were afraid of a really stupid follow up from him and because they have short time spans in mind. And also because Iran so far has been exceptionally measured, their proportional response was so tame that deescalation was an option.
People also stopped talking about his impeachment proceedings, but I guess those are halted now anyways by Pelosi.
|
On January 09 2020 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 01:56 Mohdoo wrote:
Just finished watching Trump's statement. Really good statement and super emphasized that he wants zero conflict.
Sounds like Iran is likely getting hit with more sanctions and going back to pre-deal economy. I am amazingly relieved to see how all this panned out.....aside from the 737. It is hard to see this whole situation as anything other than a giant win for Trump. Soleimani is dead and that is an amazing thing.
If it turns out Iran did accidentally shoot down the 737, it is easy to blame Trump. If this happened from all these missile systems and missile people being on red alert, is is 100% Trump's fault all those civilians died. So while this ended up being a giant military win for Trump, I'd still say this should be considered a point of shame and a giant failure when considering secondary effects, assuming Iran shot down the 737. Sanctions that I do not expect the rest of the world to copy and that are therefor not nearly as effective. The US stands alone in this.
Caught up on the thread.
No, the US doesn't really stand alone on sanctions, because they are retaliating on companies and countries that violate the sanctions they impose. So in effect, companies willing to do business with the US (a lot) have to avoid going around sanctions. It is a complicated issue with Iran currently, and while the EU tried to go around it, it's not really successfull as companies don't want to take that risk.
Now about Iran/US :
- Iran was either very bad in not hitting anything, or pretty smart in their retaliation (announcing it shortly before, and careful targeting avoiding casualties). I'm going for the latter. It gives them an honorable out in front of their people, they still respected international law, and allowed for Trump's ego. It also shows they are proficient in targeting (provided they didn't just miss of course).
- I am pretty impressed with Trump not going on a twitter rampage and actually holding his own. He will now be able to tout this diplomatic victory (even though it's self-inflicted, but he was always good at spinning things around), and will sell himself as the man who was able to avoid a war (what bullshit...)
- The end result is that Iran population is now united and hates the US even more than before. Iran government and Supreme Guide end up stronger than yesterday.
- Iranian-backed militia (especially the Iraki one who had one of its leader killed) are more pumped up than before, and threaten a lot of retaliation, so US personnel will most likely lose more lives than would have happened without this whole bullshit.
So, all in all, it's a military "win", a money loss, a diplomatic loss, and a geopolitic loss.
But it will get spinned nicely...
|
On January 09 2020 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:33 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:25 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. The point is that this isn’t like catching Bin Laden. This is someone who was killed and then we were told how amazing it is that he’s been killed and how much the world is a better place for his death. The world cannot be a noticeably better place for his death if you had previously completely failed to notice his life. If you were blissfully unaware of his existence until last week it’s irrational to be happy at the news of his demise as if it lifted a cloud from your life. Your logic is that because his name wasn't all over national news means that he should not have been killed. Or someone shouldn't be happy about it. It's not like he wasn't on the US's radar for a long time. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-neither-bush-or-obama-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-2020-1Makes zero sense. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been killed because you hadn’t heard of him. That’s a ridiculous take on what I said. Why would defence policy be based on who you had heard of? I’m saying that individuals with no knowledge of his life celebrating his death is dumb.
Elaborate? Why is it not possible for someone to hear the news, read the relevant history, and then make a conclusion? It's not like the information went away. It's all around. People can get caught up, the knowledge doesn't need to exist prior.
|
On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military.
Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that.
1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win
2. Iran restarts nuclear program.
3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground.
4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases.
5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions.
Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions.
|
On January 09 2020 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:50 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:33 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:25 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. The point is that this isn’t like catching Bin Laden. This is someone who was killed and then we were told how amazing it is that he’s been killed and how much the world is a better place for his death. The world cannot be a noticeably better place for his death if you had previously completely failed to notice his life. If you were blissfully unaware of his existence until last week it’s irrational to be happy at the news of his demise as if it lifted a cloud from your life. Your logic is that because his name wasn't all over national news means that he should not have been killed. Or someone shouldn't be happy about it. It's not like he wasn't on the US's radar for a long time. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-neither-bush-or-obama-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-2020-1Makes zero sense. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been killed because you hadn’t heard of him. That’s a ridiculous take on what I said. Why would defence policy be based on who you had heard of? I’m saying that individuals with no knowledge of his life celebrating his death is dumb. Elaborate? Why is it not possible for someone to hear the news, read the relevant history, and then make a conclusion? It's not like the information went away. It's all around. People can get caught up, the knowledge doesn't need to exist prior.
Do you know of a specific incident this guy was responsible for or how he was specifically linked to it or where the number of Americans he's linked to killing comes from?
|
5930 Posts
Is it even a so-called US military win if they completely piss decades of groundwork, billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost over the years to assert US influence in the region away to get a guy who may or may not have sole significant influence in the success of Iranian asymmetrical warfare efforts against Americans?
The only way it’s remotely a positive under your definition is if this guy was really the Michael Jordan of asymmetrical warfare. The fact we know little about him or Iranian related terrorist attacks against Americans until now would suggest probably not.
|
United States44079 Posts
On January 09 2020 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:50 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:33 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:25 KwarK wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. The point is that this isn’t like catching Bin Laden. This is someone who was killed and then we were told how amazing it is that he’s been killed and how much the world is a better place for his death. The world cannot be a noticeably better place for his death if you had previously completely failed to notice his life. If you were blissfully unaware of his existence until last week it’s irrational to be happy at the news of his demise as if it lifted a cloud from your life. Your logic is that because his name wasn't all over national news means that he should not have been killed. Or someone shouldn't be happy about it. It's not like he wasn't on the US's radar for a long time. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-neither-bush-or-obama-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-2020-1Makes zero sense. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been killed because you hadn’t heard of him. That’s a ridiculous take on what I said. Why would defence policy be based on who you had heard of? I’m saying that individuals with no knowledge of his life celebrating his death is dumb. Elaborate? Why is it not possible for someone to hear the news, read the relevant history, and then make a conclusion? It's not like the information went away. It's all around. People can get caught up, the knowledge doesn't need to exist prior.
The corollary to his death being a success worthy of a strong positive emotional reaction is that his life represented an ongoing failure of American interests worthy of a strong negative emotional reaction. And yet no such negative emotional reaction exists. The non existence of the failure demonstrates the hollowness of the supposed success. They killed someone and declared victory and everyone celebrates. But when the supposed victory is the removal of an obstacle it begs the question, why did nobody notice the obstacle.
The most obvious answer to me is that whoever they killed, and whenever they killed them, it was always going to be declared a glorious American victory. If we accept their logic then there must be countless more victories in waiting that have not yet been achieved and each of them represents an ongoing current failure. It’s all absurd. Those who struggled with him as an adversary may recognize this as a win but the likes of you can’t unless you reconcile that with the countless defeats that should be weighing you down.
|
Like when they bring in the Eastasian or Eurasian soldiers to Oceania to be executed. You don't know what they did beforehand besides from what the state told you. And then they can change and say it was a completely different reason or that it never happened. At the moment they tell you to celebrate, you celebrate. Afterwards, you go back to your life as if nothing has changed.
Also, 2-minutes hate.
|
On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions.
I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda.
Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode...
That's really not "extreamly well for Iran"
|
On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran"
If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine.
The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that...
People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want".
If your desire is to:
Show strength to your people.
Be seen as reliable.
Not get blown back to the stoneage.
Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T
hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally.
It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically.
And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage.
= Great success.
If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome.
|
I still don't understand how assassinating Soleimani was an "escalation" rather than a flagrant act of war, or how it can be called "self defense". It would be self defense if he were conducting operations in or around America. But in the current situation, where the US has a giant military presence all around Iran, and is allied to its mortal enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia, it seems to me like Iran is the one defending itself. Not to mention we are utterly decimating its economy.
|
On January 09 2020 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran" If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine. The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that... People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want". If your desire is to: Show strength to your people. Be seen as reliable. Not get blown back to the stoneage. Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally. It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically. And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage. = Great success. If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome.
They didn't shoot 20, stop spreading misinformation, it was 15, with 4 of them failing in the air, unsure how many reached the target and failed to explode. The bases are also not US bases, but are Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops.
|
On January 09 2020 03:44 franzji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran" If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine. The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that... People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want". If your desire is to: Show strength to your people. Be seen as reliable. Not get blown back to the stoneage. Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally. It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically. And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage. = Great success. If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome. They didn't shoot 20, stop spreading misinformation, it was 15, with 4 of them failing in the air, unsure how many reached the target and failed to explode. The bases are also not US bases, but are Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops.
Oh no it was 15 rockets not 20. Does that make even the slightest difference?
And does anyone care if it was technically a US base or not. There was American soldiers on site and they took a shot at it. If they had hit a full barracks and killed 100 marines shit would have hit the fan regardless of it being an "Iraqi" base. That didn't happen and it was clearly intentional.
|
|
|
On January 09 2020 04:02 JimmiC wrote:
Question, if Iran intentionally did no damage to the US on purpose how does that play internally? Are the Iranian's calling for blood satisfied with property damage in exchange for life of their general?
I hope so because I don't want any escalation but it seems like if it becomes clear they didn't want to hit anything it isn't much of a response, and if it becomes clear that they tried to do damage and didn't do any that does not seem great as well. Is the spin that "we wanted to show the American's and we could hit them and will if they do something like this again"?
Iran media reports 80 us troops dead from their strike
|
Well it's one situation where having Trump would be better than having Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld I guess.
We can all be relieved for now but seeing people loading praise on Trump for solving a situation he created himself seems very naive.
|
On January 09 2020 03:57 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2020 03:44 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 03:22 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On January 09 2020 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:On January 09 2020 02:19 Gorsameth wrote:On January 09 2020 02:10 franzji wrote:On January 09 2020 02:07 KwarK wrote:
It’s like rejoicing at the news that a bad guy in a tv series you don’t watch is dead. This isn't television, if a bad guy who has more bad things planned to kill Americans is dead... why should he not be happy. Take some time to read some history. To get you started you should read up on the 1953 coup, might give you some insight into why America is hated. American can be the 100% bad guys, as a whole, of the situation, while Sol dying is also a good thing for the US military. I don't think I follow your logic. 1. USA does a bunch of bad shit to Iran that makes Iran and the whole region way worse 2. Iran and USA end up as huge enemies because of USA interference, basically the US makes things even worse 3. Iran and USA fight and stuff, where Soleimani ends up being a big name and a very well regarded part of Iran's military 4. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 5. Iran blows up some sand and accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost 6. This specific spat seems to have been a net positive for USA military Note: Bad for the world, good for USA military. Yes, the entire situation is their making. But looking at the situation for what it currently is, killing a big name general and not losing a single soldier is a fantastic result for USA military. Trump is entirely incapable of 4d chess but Iran is not. So far everything has gone extremely well for Iran after the assassination. They never wanted to kill any Americans with the strikes (telling the world in advanced they would use conventional military options, posturing the missile launchers and the warning Iraq whom they knew would immediately send the info to the US...) and the managed to do exactly that. 1. USA kills Sol, a huge enemy, so it is a USA win 2. Iran restarts nuclear program. 3. Iran blows up some sand and (maybe) accidentally shoots down a plane, zero American lives lost. However Iran demonstrates military capability, diplomatic responsibility and comes out with the diplomatic high-ground. 4. The US decides to let Iran get away with launching a direct military attack against their bases. 5. No one talks about Iranian nukes and other countries are not interested in additional sanctions. Killing 10, 20 or a hundred US soldiers give you nothing except being bombed into oblivion. Far better having an active nuclear program, the US being seen as unstable, destabilizing and dangerous and you having the moral high ground when the time comes for Trump to try to persuade the rest of the world into new harsher sanctions. I mean, it is highly likely that they accidentally shot down a plane leaving their airport, right over their capital.. That's pretty embarrassing considering they try to use the plane that America shot down in the early 80s on accident as anti-American propaganda. Also, a lot of their missiles they launched failed to even explode in Iraq. A lot of news agencies were trying to get close to them but were told they didn't explode... That's really not "extreamly well for Iran" If they shoot down a plane that's bad. But if you don't want to kill anyone missiles not exploding is fine. The strike on the Saudi oilplant was accurate and effective and Iran was supposedly behind that... People focus to much on "how did it go" and not so much on "what did they want". If your desire is to: Show strength to your people. Be seen as reliable. Not get blown back to the stoneage. Then it worked out perfectly. There is going to be so much propaganda going around anyway (80 dead, missiles didn't explode etc) so it hardly matters if the rockets were armed with wet paper bags. T hey launched ~20 rockets at US bases, they hit (something) and the US let them get away with it. Great story internally. It was a measured military response and not a terrorist attack. Great story diplomatically. And they didn't kill anyone so the US could not bomb the shit out of them with a straight face. Not blown back into the stoneage. = Great success. If I had posted 1 week ago that any country on earth just launched 20 rockets against a US military base as an official attack and the response was "this is fine" people would have thought I was mad so I think Iran is pretty happy about the outcome. They didn't shoot 20, stop spreading misinformation, it was 15, with 4 of them failing in the air, unsure how many reached the target and failed to explode. The bases are also not US bases, but are Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Oh no it was 15 rockets not 20. Does that make even the slightest difference? And does anyone care if it was technically a US base or not. There was American soldiers on site and they took a shot at it. If they had hit a full barracks and killed 100 marines shit would have hit the fan regardless of it being an "Iraqi" base. That didn't happen and it was clearly intentional.
It does matter, for reasons I shouldn't have to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
