Iran/US conflict

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

This was part of JCPOA, and had nothing to do with the proxy conflict in Iraq.

Which was the point you were trying to make.

Like I said, this dog is a cat.

I know what the deal was and I don't care. Those funds were originally frozen back in 1979 for very good reasons. Now maybe you and the Obama administration are ok with it but I think it was a mistake to give our enemies large sums of money that they will use to kill us.

[mapuc]

After my last comment my imagination ran away with me.

Iran has this three days of mourning which ends tomorrow(Monday)
The Iranian president gives the go-ahead to the military who have picked 3 targets

1. An American warship in the Strait of Hormuz
2. Airbase in Kuwait
3. Naval base in Oman.

USA retaliate as promised by Trump

Iran knows they can not fight alone against USA, so they do two things to get their muslim brothers on their side.

1. Attack one of their most holly place they have-using propagande saying it was US who did this.
2. Attack Israel-Hopeing they will counter attack-using propaganda saying Israel has joined forces with USA..........

But this was my free running imagination.

Markus

[Tchocky]

That deal delayed and reduced the Iranian nuclear programme considerably.

Now you can decide that there is no give and take possible and therefore confrontation is the right choice.

Fair enough I guess.

But it's really stupid to conflate a nuclear pact that includes sacrifice from both sides with something unrelated. As you did above.

You're right on one thing though - you really don't care about facts or details.

If the JCPOA included significant anti-terror facets you'd have one hell of a point.

Dog is still a cat though.

[Skybird]

The deal bought Iran the time it needed to sneak as closely towards the finishing line as possible without starting the final sprint and triggering vilent reaction. The West got nothing in return for that accept the comfort of not needing to turn tough back then already: and enjoying the cozy warmth of assuming that all will be well and Europe is a diplomatic power to count with. The European Iran diplomacy - is in ruins, militarily and diplomatically Europe is a dwarf. It based on self-deception from beginning on, so tbe outcome is just fair. The US does right in not caring for European positions over Iran.

[Mr Quatro]

This is how they think

Abolfazl Abutorabi, a hardline member of Iran’s parliament, urged Iran to treat a U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general as an act of war, warranting immediate response.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...Ukw88AybqvoAHY

“We can attack the White House itself, we can respond to them on the American soil. We have the power, and God willing we will respond in an appropriate time,” Abutorabi said in comments first circulated by Iran’s ILNA news agency.

Abutorabi made his comments during parliamentary debates as to how the Iranian government should respond to the U.S. strike in Baghdad, Iraq that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani. For Abutorabi, the answer was that Iran “should crush America’s teeth.”

“This is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose,”

[Skybird]

^And yet, the majority of Trump'S voters do not want another war, and he said he will lead the US out of its many war operations and military engagements. It remains to be seen how this will be played by the WH when Iran goes tough, and how any war action will go with Trump's voters. In the past, victorious military operations helped potlicans to score at home. But this time? And whether it will be "victorious action" at all, also is not question with a predetermined answers. In the past 20, 25 years, the US has excelled in politically lose its wars which it militarily indeed should have won. Lack of understanding of the enemy's nature, and lacking strategic longterm foresight were the reasons. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nor the engagements during the socalled Arab Spring qualify for a description of successes, or to have achieved in the region what one hoped and claimed they would acchieve. To what degree the prevention of Muslim terrorism in the West counts on behalff of these wars, can be debated. I think other measurements taken are more relevant in this regard. They all came with massive legal fallout for freedom and civili rights and media freedom.

[Jimbuna]

[ikalugin]

TBH I find the fact how the rise of tensions in Libya is being overshadowed by this rather amusing.


In the dark grim present of the Middle East (and North Africa and a bunch of other such places bundled up) there is only War.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

This is how they think

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...Ukw88AybqvoAHY

This brings to mind an interesting question, a reverse and hypothetical situation:

How the U.S. would react if, during peace time, the Iranian government would send a raid to kill one of the top U.S. general

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Skybird

^And yet, the majority of Trump'S voters do not want another war, and he said he will lead the US out of its many war operations and military engagements. It remains to be seen how this will be played by the WH when Iran goes tough, and how any war action will go with Trump's voters. In the past, victorious military operations helped potlicans to score at home. But this time? And whether it will be "victorious action" at all, also is not question with a predetermined answers. In the past 20, 25 years, the US has excelled in politically lose its wars which it militarily indeed should have won. Lack of understanding of the enemy's nature, and lacking strategic longterm foresight were the reasons. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan nor the engagements during the socalled Arab Spring qualify for a description of successes, or to have achieved in the region what one hoped and claimed they would acchieve. To what degree the prevention of Muslim terrorism in the West counts on behalff of these wars, can be debated. I think other measurements taken are more relevant in this regard. They all came with massive legal fallout for freedom and civili rights and media freedom.

Trumps has stated numerous times he does not want a war and will not take the USA to war. However, Trump has always stated that acts such as the attack on the embassy and American lives lost will result in a reaction. As said, this past attack was not going to be another Benghazi. If Trump did not act on what he has said prior to this attack it would be taken as empty rhetoric. A weak position. Obama red line never existed. Trump has a red line.

[mapuc]

The awaiting response from Iran.

How they will react is unknown, even though they have said it will be militarily.

Our media have presented this as the attack is right around the corner.

I myself think it will come much later.

I would:

Attack them when they less expect it.
Attack them where they less expect it
Attack them in a way they less expect it.

Markus

[Mr Quatro]

Iran is still in morning for the general, but does anyone know what this blue thing is in their square: https://news.yahoo.com/mourners-pack...070158455.html

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Iran is still in morning for the general, but does anyone know what this blue thing is in their square: https://news.yahoo.com/mourners-pack...070158455.html

Command deck of the USS Enterprise. NCC-1701.

[Jimbuna]

To the best of my knowledge it is a rounfabout in the centre of Engelab Square but I'm not sure if the blue round shaped sphere is a monument or something similar.

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Could be a leisure pool for the 72 virgins