Trump ordered US drone strike that killed Iran general Qassem Suleimani

When was Saddam ever an ally with Iran?

If they where allies why didn't we attack Iran?


Quit back pedlling

 

Remember how peaceful things were before Trump tore up the Iranian deal.

 

I have not backpedaled on anything - you are the one that can't figure out when one nation is aiding another in a war - they are allies .. and the war in Iraq went on long after Saddam was gone - an illegal war that turned that nation into a Jihadist wonderland - killing hundreds of thousands of people. Don't see you crying any tears for those folks .. calling for justice and targeted assassination for the perpetrators.

Quit being hypocritical.

 

Yes, we should just throw $ at them and hope for the best, hoping they will cease being the leading, state sponsor of terror on earth. Sounds like a great plan.

 

Obama gave away the Constitutional Republic in Iraq by pulling out all of our military, intelligence, and governance personnel in 2011. This resulted in ISIS and the current mess in the ME in which Iraq was practically speaking a satellite of Iran.

 

That clearly has worked in North Korea.

 

They where never allies, if they where allies the USA would of destroyed Baghdad and turn their tanks around and went right into Tehran.


Blown the **** out of Iran


We beat Iran 4th most powerful military under a 100 hours.

It was just a clean up crew that this Iraq general snuck in and started killing us military personnel




.

 

The US took a step which will undoubtedly see the long simmering war between IRAN and the US more clearly out in the open. Iran's response to this brazen act, killing its most beloved military officer, will not necessarily be swift as that response will require appropriate planning and calibration, but Iran's answer will ultimately be harsh and unforgiving. That is certain. This will eventually lead to the US finally having to leave the region. Or it will force the US to take on Iran directly in a war -- a war which will not be anything like what some neocon propaganda artists have painted for the American people.

In the meantime, I read a lot of commentary here about IRAN that I find obnoxious. I don't know if the commentary reflects people who have been misled by falsehoods or is an effort by those who want to perpetuate such falsehoods on their own. But let me be clear about a few things:

First, General Soleimani was the most popular figure across the political spectrum in Iran, having 80% favorable approval rating going well beyond even those who support the regime. The other 20% who didn't register favorable views of General Soleimani were either clueless and didn't even know about him or, a small percentage, represent the kind of "Iranians" some here imagine represent IRAN.
Second, part of what made General Soleimani so popular was that he was actually a soldier of IRAN, whose role was confined to fighting against Iran's foreign enemies. That is where he made his mark and that is where he spent his life and career. Otherwise, he played no real political role within Iran and eschewed attempts to enlist him in political divisions in the country or suggestions he should run for political office. There is no American equivalent to General Soleimani, but the closest comparison would be to someone like General Eisenhower for the Americans during WWII. Except, General Soleimani was someone who was usually in the trenches and fought alongside the troops he commanded, be they Iranian or not. Which earned him great respect not just among Iranians, but all those who fought alongside this brave soldier in the many fights waged by IRAN against its enemies, including in its most recent chapters, against ISIS.
Finally, anyone who imagines that Iran was or is somehow on the ropes, and who peddles false statistics on Iran's economy and 'median income', to promote this nonsense will need to be prepare himself for a rude awakening. After a couple of years marked by a significant (but not devastating) downturn in Iran's economy, the Iranian economy had largely stabilized. And while there were legitimate gripes and voices represented by the so-called 'gas price hike' protests, much of what was presented to the American and western public under the guise of those 'protests' were in fact a failed attempt to push Iran on the road of 'implosion': the legitimate protests were used by saboteurs and foreign agents (armed, trained and funded by foreign sources) as pretext and cover to engage in terrorism and vandalism to bring about an ethnic (working with Arab, Baluchi and Kurdish separatists on Iran's periphery) and political (using foreign orchestrated groups within Iran) to bring about a civil war in Iran. It was an utter failure somewhat reminiscent of what happened during the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in the early 1960s.

Anyway, use whatever labels you wish and fool yourselves in the service of neocon and Israeli propaganda artists who peddle falsehoods to paint white as black. A new chapter has started with the assassination of General Soleimani as the Iranian public (more insistently than even the regime) are demanding a severe reprisal for this attack as such a reprisal has been promised by all factions in Iranian politics, including Iran's Supreme Leader. In the meantime, from now on, the Middle East will not even be safe enough for the US to have its dignitaries and soldiers hiding behind barracks and guns. The only thing that will change that will be a war with Iran and, despite knowing that such a war will indeed be hugely costly and was entirely unnecessary except to help those who aspire to the PNAC agenda, that is what those who have been pushing for these US policies are ultimately looking for.

 

Soleimani was an animal.

 

For a lot of reasons, I don't think he cooked this one up to distract attention from his impeachment. He has to get us to believe him about a foreign policy matter, and because of the impeachment we know he lied about the Ukraine.

Israelis are no doubt tired to dealing with Iran-backed Palestinians, but there is no evidence suggesting Israel would use nuclear weapons except, perhaps, to deal with an existential threat.

 

Why not do that instead of committing an act of war by assassinating their top general, then?

 

All that to say he wanted to wipe isreal off the map and kill as many US soldiers as possible?




Trump blew him up so bad the only way they could identify him is by ring

 

Delete

 

Because it cuts the snakes head off.

 

Oh give us a break, Patton was killed by the Soviet union


The Telegraph › uk › worldnews › usa
General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of ...
Dec 20, 2008 · The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had ...



War History Online › war-articles
The Death of George Patton – Was America's most Controversial General ...
Dec 20, 2018 · Patton was also an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union, which at that time was still America's ally. At one ...

 

That doesn't make sense. If we can shut Iran's government down with a blockade, that would be a more peaceful course that would save lives. This way, we haven't decapitated a snake so much as stirred up a hornet's nest.

 

The good general's war against Iran's enemy foolishly included attacking and killing our people in Iraq and Syria, and propping up Assad and threatening Israel, and using weapons of mass destruction on ships and Saudi oil fields. At what point would it have been acceptable, in your view, for the US to respond as it did? How much farther did he have to go before it would have been acceptable to take a shot and kill the guy masterminding all of this and more?

Whatever the strategic problems there are with doing this, it was justifiable in many ways. I also doubt that they would have hesitated to kill an American general if they had had the opportunity. They have been eager to do anything they could to sting us and our allies. They have been waging a war against us, essentially, while pretending otherwise.

 

1- Foolish? Without the efforts by Iran's Qud's force to draw the line on US/Israeli hegemony, Iran itself would have been a victim of the PNAC project many years ago during the Bush years. General Soleimani's actions not only helped Iran and its allies defeat those who were trying to stick a dagger at the heart of the axis of resistance in the 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and during the Syrian civil war, but were also instrumental in making sure "mission accomplished" in Iraq wouldn't see Iraq become another base against Iran. I don't think those actions were foolish based on Iran's calculations.
2- "weapons of mass destruction" on ships and Saudi oil fields? That must have been some typo!!

What is acceptable to me isn't what will be acceptable to you. For me, the US has no business trying to impose political hegemony in the region, much less invading and attacking various countries and building up bases all around Iran in our neighborhood. The real issue for the US is whether this action (which was a huge gamble) will ultimately pay any real dividends in terms of how Americans have defined their interests (or allowed others to define them for them). The real issue for Iran is whether it can use the outpouring of anger over the assassination of General Soleimani to make sure the US is kicked out of the region, while avenging this brazen attack in a manner that will prove effective both in the short term and in the long term?

Iran has the same opportunity to kill American generals as the Americans had in the manner they killed General Soleimani. Each time an American official or military officers flies into the region, within the range of Iran's drones and missiles, in various countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or even elsewhere, they may need to make sure there isn't a drone overhead to take out their convoy. That was not how things were for the Americans before this attack.

The war Iran has waged has been a war against US hegemony in the Middle East and last time I checked, the Middle East wasn't ever part of the United States. But, to to pretend the US has played no role in that war is ridiculous. Indeed, while Iran has been more successful in its low level war than many Americans seem to realize, basically succeeding in the various theaters it has engaged the Americans (be it in kicking the US and Israelis out of Lebanon, in preventing Iraq from becoming an American base against Iran, or in preventing Assad's ouster, etc), and while Iran's actions have carried some costs to the US in both casualties and more, ultimately even in failure, the US has caused the deaths of many more Iranians in the process of this war than vice versa. The US shot down an Iranian passenger plane and before that sunk several Iranian naval vessels (and killed a couple of hundred Iranian sailors) in the 1980s, while America was also complicit during that time in Saddam's war against Iran, including his use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and even civilians. And while direct American engagements against Iran have been rare since the 1980s until this assassination, the US has also waged various forms of economic warfare, in cyber warfare and terrorism, and all sorts of other efforts against Iran. This has not been a one way war by any means.

 

Soleimani was a leader of Iran's state sponsored terrorist organization. Killing him is tantamount to the killing of Bagdadi and Bin Laden. Lives will be saved by this action.

 

Soleimani was the leader of the Quds terrorist organization. He deserved to die for the evil he has done in the world.

 

I've been struggling to find the right words to express this but you beat me to it.

 

Where exactly are these Americans he was planning to attack? Are they in North Platte Nebraska or are they trespassing in the dead man's backyard?

 

Durandal the US and its friend Israel have been the primary aggressors. Why do you expect you can just kill and kill and kill and no one will ever respond. The US has been in an act or war with Iran since it went back on its International Treaty with Iran. You are without question the fundamental aggressor here.

and further it would appear you do not believe in the rule of law. You believe that the US has the right to kill anyone it wants whenever it wants. Lastly killing this man was stupidity. No doubt Trump and his people thought 'we killed bin laden, we killed head of ISIS this will give Trump another pat on the back'. Bin Laden and the ISIS man had gone past their sell by date. Read how Iranian Monitor describes people's feelings towards this man - that is as I have read them elsewhere. It would be a bit like to the Brits the US murdering the Queen.

and then of course there is the stupidity of putting the ME into a position where it will not be safe for Americans. As I think Humble pie mentioned Iran has lots of proxies even possibly in the US. You already have had to stop your soccer team going to train in Qatar you are scared that Americans in the ME will be murdered.

and you can never look at your own actions. The US seems incapable of self reflection. The inability to self reflect suggests severe psychological problems. Peace with a country like that I would say is impossible.

 

You are? You as "you Americans"? Freudian slip?

I thought you were an American. Obviously not.

 

Even if that argument was right. They had little appeal at the time you murdered them. Killing Soleimani is however to the Iranian people not too different than it would be to the American people Iran killing a much loved President in Office. This has to be the most stupid thing the US has done in all its war mongering and lawlessness.