We Were "This Close" Says Iran

The last part of his post is comical. How many American generals deserve the same fate? What a sad pathetic and ignorant comment. Even more so if he lives under the umbrella of freedom and safety provided by those men and women.

 

Iran and Saudi Arabia are in a proxy war with each other in Yemen. The most we can say about Iran's complicity in the attack is that they supplied weapons to the Houthis.

If killing the leaders of other nation is justified on the basis of supplying weapons to some proxy army - How many of our leaders should be killed ?

 

Killed by U.S. forces or our allies?

None.

They are provided security to prevent other from doing so. Just as scumbag was. Luckily we were able to overcome that.

Your mistake is you think you know what that scum bag was responsible for and what he was not. You don’t. That type of information Is classified for reason. It’s not released even after it’s not relevant will often reveal where it came from.

 

That is some wild & crazy stuff. I admire your dedication.

 

but all true.

Plenty more. Was it not one of your own ex Presidents who described you as the most warlike country in the history of the world.

 

I said shut up because you were talking nonsense. Soleimani is a high level Iranian leader who often acts in a diplomatic capacity. It does not matter if it is the high level individual was a general - diplomat - or "high level leader".

I already stated that folks often break the rule. That does not mean that when one nation targets the leaders of another - you will most often get a response..

What plots are you talking about ? Soleimani spent most of the last decade fighting against ISIS and Al Qaeda. In war situations we plot attacks against our adversaries all the time - and boast about them when successful.

How many of our Generals/leaders should then be targeted on the basis of your criteria ?

 

They came closer to mass destruction that is a definite. It’s

Compared to the Middle East? You think America is a war like nation compared to that war culture?

We posses the most powerful military in the world, have for decades. If we were a nation of conquest the world would have a lot more American flags flying.

When it comes to taking military action when our interest demand it, yes we will as they say “put a boot up your ass”

Or a Hellfire in this cases..

 

You are welcome to your opinion that he is a Hero - many in Iran share your feelings - I do not share this opinion but - whether or not this guy was a hero has nothing to do with my post.

 

Not by US forces and our allies silly. Your justification for killing a high level leader of another nation was because he engaged in acts of terror - acted against Americans - in a conflict situation.

Since our leaders have done the same thing - to other nations - how many of our leaders should be killed by the nations we plotted against ?

Our intelligence agency talking heads have stated what this guy was responsible for.
.

 

Targeted by who? What are you babbling about? This is not a game with “rules to make it fair” as you seem think. Do you think for a second they would take the opportunity to kill a U.S. General if they could and it served their needs? Again you misunderstand history if you think that has ever been the case.

And again you do not know what he was involved in. It’s not a option it’s a fact. Stop acting as if your in a position to judge rather he was involved in harmful actions against this country. Of course we publicly announced and celebrated his death. That was part of the intent of killing him. To help shatter the network of terror he was part of. It’s the same mindset why the people you are defending video beheadings of hostages and broadcast those videos.
Except they do it to people for being “western” as opposed to being a military commander. Call him diplomat all you want, he wore a military uniform and commanded military troops.

Honestly you seem to have little to no understanding of military history or conflict. Your out of your league clearly in these matters. I’ve nothing else to say to you as your points are based on what you think is fair as opposed to either history or reality.

 

You think the intel guys told us everything....
They did not. They will not. They should not.
For reasons I’ve already posted.

None of our leaders should be killed. This is not two kids punching each other saying “he started it”....

 

I have stated numerous times that targeted assassinations have gone one through recorded history. You are confused.

Iran could easily take out some of our high level personnel and/or diplomats - (or Russia ) but they don't.

You are building a Strawman - I never said Soleimani didn't engage in harmful actions against this country. My question to you is that since we engage in actions harmful to other nations - are those are the nations harmed then justified in targeting our high level Generals/leaders/diplomats.

You seem to not understand the question.

You are the one that seems to have trouble understanding basic ideas - and putting words into the mouths of others that they did not speak

 

I didn't say that the intel guys told us everything - so doubling down on that narrative is silliness.

What is also silliness is claiming that targeted assassination of high level personnel in other nations is justified on the basis of "we don't know what he did" or "we don't know that he didn't do it".

You seem unable to understand the question. You gave your justification for targeted assassination of high level personnel of another nation.

If other nations were to adopt it your justification - how many of our personnel would these nations be justified in assassinating ?

 

It already is and it always has been standard to kill the military leaders who oppose you. Other nations currently have and have had the same view on it. It’s not uniquely American in any way shape or form.

It was part of the reason the Roman Empire rose and fell, their ability to do just that and their knack of doing it within the empire to them selves. It is thruout the history of Europe in the Middle Ages, Asia and the ancient world of Persia and Greece, literally everywhere in history military leaders were targeted and killed. Hitler would have been but it was determined his death would harm the War effort against Germany because of his incompetent military leadership of German forces.

There are not “rules of fairness” to the world.

Yes I want those who would harm this country stopped, if that warrants them dead then so be it.

No I do not want nor think our military leaders should be targeted by this nation’s enemies because of their actions in defense on America or her allies.

I could really not care less if you think this scum bag was innocent or guilty, military or diplomat. You have no ideal what he was plotting. Leave that to the experts. Your armchair analysis of it is based on a lack of knowledge and thus is inaccurate.

 

The above is complete BS. When is the last time Russia, China, or any other nation has done targeted assassination on our Military leaders ?
When had a policy of doing targeted assassination on the military leaders of Russia ?

Again you respond with mindless gibberish - followed by hypocrisy. Either targeted assassination is of another nation's leaders is justified ( on the basis of your stated criteria) or it is not.

You are claiming essentially "It's justified for us but not for them" - and this is nonsense.

 

Yes I am.

I’m one of “us” not one of “them”.


The fact that you think that’s is nonsense is simply amazing and continue to show your lack of understanding of the nature of conflict.

You have the mentality of a child looking for a adult to make things fair in this world.

 

Now you are just projecting your issues onto others because you have no valid argument.

The idea that we are going to stand up in front of the world - and say to the world - "We are for a rules based world order" - and everyone should sign onto and follow these rules - "except US" is laughable nonsense on steroids - akin to the mentality of a child.

 

Osama was a military leader. Gaddafi was a military leader as was Saddam. We targeted Yamamoto and killed him. The limiting factor in killing these political and military people is opportunity.

 

Yes - During a world war - the rules go out the window. What is nonsense is comparing actions taken during such an event - to the targeted assassination of Soleimani.

 

I will answer your questions.

1) Trump/Pompeo with the killing of Soleimani already established a great deal of deterrence that will at least make Iran think twice while trying to kill Americans via proxy.

Trump/Pompeo know that killing Soleimani was a decisive action so any action that didn't kill a sizable amount of American troops was probably not going to provoke a response especially considering the United States was warned of the attack a few hours in advance indicating to the US Iran's attack was more about "saving face". US had intelligence sources probably in Iran indicating attack was coming and then Iraqi's via Iran also warned.

American is a Republic where voters elect their leaders so Trump if he wants to get re-elected does have to take domestic political concerns into account. But given no one died on US side, I suspect even if public was urging him a bit to strike again, he would have held off for the time being. President Donald Trump is less on an interventionist than previous US Presidents. He is trying to squeeze Iran economically to put pressure on its leadership to change its behavior which includes terror via proxy and the repression of its own people.

Trump's rhetoric may be he would rather have a nuclear armed Iran but economically weak in X years than stronger Iran with nuclear weapons in X+(3-5) years.

2) One soldier may be misinformed if that is not Iranian propaganda but overall US military knew Iran left unchecked could lob missiles, IEDs whatever at US forces in the region. It was reported all over cable news -- nevermind more serious outlets -- for years that Iran could strike US bases. No one is denying that but the loud message Trump/Pompeo sent to Iran's ruling class including it's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is that no one in Iran is off the table.

As for why not shoot down the missiles, I do not know for sure but part of the reason may be the US didn't have the appropriate equipment to do so without going on the attack at least and another could be that shooting down missiles could end up injuring civilians and the US waned Iran solely responsible for the deaths of any Iraqi civilians that occurred in an Iran strike.

Given the US did not strike back, when the Iranians were unfortunately trigger happy a civilian airliner got shot down.

 

You are often wrong, but never in doubt.

I suppose that’s admirable in your corner of the world.

 

If it makes you feel better.

 

I asked the questions I asked because if you tried to think clearly through these questions, you will find out how much what you have been told about the whole issue is propaganda. So let me tackle your response, which is cogent in that follows a logical sequence based on the propaganda, but can easily be shown to lack substance when examined carefully.

How does that even make sense? Deterrence means making something less likely, not more. Because of the assassination of General Soleimani, Iran not only vowed to take direct action against the US (which it did) but it is now understood to be planning and coordinating various proxy measures against the US with far greater focus and intent than previously.

When Iran's missiles were being fired at the Al Asad air base, the US had no way to be assured that American soldiers would not be killed. You are taking the 'excuse' for not retaliating against Iran, and pretending that is something the US could have known a priori when those missiles were being fired. When those missiles were being fired, in waves, the US stood by and didn't send any missiles at the launch sites, whether during the strikes or afterwards. It didn't for a reason and that reason has nothing to do with Iran feeling more deterred or restrained! The opposite.

Again, how does this narrative show that the assassination of General Soleimani 'established deterrence' against Iran? It is the opposite of deterrence.
The fact that the US suffered no fatalities was, according to even the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mostly due to sheer luck. But it isn't just a question of fatalities. A major US air base was hit and damaged, its operations disrupted, and dozens of US servicemen (109) were left injured, all from an operation which Iran took credit for. More than that, whatever General Soleimani was supposedly plotting to do in secret against the US, Iran is now loudly claiming it proxy will be doing to US forces until they are evicted from the region.

While I disagree with certain aspects of your narrative, I prefer to focus on the specific for now.

How is "Iranian propaganda' going to creep into the comments of an American officer and commander of a US air base, reflected in a US news outlet? In any case, you missed the point of my question. Most Americans who follow the news would know Iran has 'missiles', but very few realize or have been told about the actual precision and capabilities of these missiles. In fact, much of the time, they are being misled on the issue and only recently, after the evidence has become undeniable, are they receiving some greater information on this point.

My question wasn't about why the US didn't 'shoot down' the missiles, but how come it didn't (try) to take out the missiles before being launched despite having 'advance notice'? Why it didn't do it during each wave of those attacks, meaning after the first wave, sending bombers to take out the 'launch sites'? Why it didn't do it any point during the whole thing?

Occam's razor and a little logic freed from the propaganda would give you a much better narrative to explain what happened. It is not all that difficult to understand, only if you put aside the propaganda.

 

The common denominator is they were all enemies of the United States and all high ranking government/military personnel. Oh yes, and they all died as such.

 

Well. The US exposed themselves as liars on the world stage.
There was no imminent threat. There were no 4 targets threatened.
And the US lost Iraq to the Iranian sphere of influence.
Rockets are tossed at US bases in Iraq all the time from inside Iraq.
That's the legacy of the US.