Iran v US confrontation

Kaos said:
This is my personal belief too, I think his military advisors are probably feeling a little apprehensive at the moderate to put it generously, I doubt they’d green light such a precarious assassination. No surprise he’s milking the bravado for all it’s worth mind you.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. They've been wanting to take him out for years. They knew exactly where he was and finally had an excuse to do it.
 
Gambit said:
A question you could ask Soleimani many times over, not just in terms of legitimate military targets but thousands of lives lost to his actions. He has nearly 20 years of reasons and has been getting bolder. I'm not taking sides here, Im just saying I'm not shocked this has happened. This wasn't some innocent man caught out here. He was engaged and active in his operations against the USA.
Click to expand...
If that were the criteria to justify a state sponsored assassination then there’d hardly be any regional leaders left standing, including the US’ own allies.

I don’t think many will be mourning Soleimani but it does set a dangerous precedence if the US genuinely sought to take out a senior military figure to make a point.
 
Gambit said:
A question you could ask Soleimani many times over, not just in terms of legitimate military targets but thousands of lives lost to his actions. He has nearly 20 years of reasons and has been getting bolder. I'm not taking sides here, Im just saying I'm not shocked this has happened. This wasn't some innocent man caught out here. He was engaged and active in his operations against the USA.
Click to expand...
Same could be said about the US and their generals, how many civilians they have killed not only in the ME but Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
2mufc0 said:
Same could be said about the US and their generals, how many civilians they have killed not only in the ME but Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Soleimani was a ruthless POS, but let’s not pretend he holds a monopoly over the death and devastation caused in the region and that this aggression was one sided.
 
Surely the US would just flatten Iran if it came to that? What's the level of their Nuclear deterrent? Another American war is surely due anyway, their military weapons contractors surely need a boost. Be interesting to see if anything did happen what Boris would do.

Lets hope nothing become of it.
 
Sky1981 said:
They cant afford not to retaliate. Anything other than a declaration of war will see their citizens protests and probably a coup

Can you imagine if US soc openly assassinated and the US presidents do anything but declare war?
Click to expand...

Well I think the power base of the Iranian regime would protest if no action was taken which would be the nail in the coffin for the regime (similar to MAGA supporters taking up arms if something were to happen to Trump). Not sure that the general Iranian populace would feel the same way though especially considering that the Iranian regime just killed 1.5k of them. These actions make me believe that the Iranian regime needs a war just as much as Trump to retain power.

This recent series of events logically has started with the reintroduction of sanctions by Trump after the shelving of the nuclear deal. Why did Trump do this? To retain power and satisfy his voter base, not due to sensible foreign policy and a caring for the well-being of humanity. The point of the nuclear deal was that both sides would need to make concessions to achieve peace but Trump and his crony-followers don't want any sort of compromise. The sanctions then start to take a toll, culminating with the recent protests inside Iran over rising prices and leading to the regime causing the deaths of many people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Iranian_protests) to retain power. Since the sanctions were resumed, the Iranian regime knew that to hold onto power and inflict harm on the US, they would need to resume violence against American allies and assets in the ME. Iran could have shown restraint before with KH but instead allowed them to first attack US assets in Syria and then storm the US embassy in Iraq after the US hit KH with a few missiles to warn them off their attacks. The supreme leader then tweets a new years message goading the US to act by saying "they can't do anything". While I don't think the Iranian regime expected the US to be able to target QS, they probably were hoping that Trump would do something stupid enough to justify continued hostility against the US to their population, thus solidifying their grip on power. Part of me wonders if after the nuclear deal Iran tried to find an alternative peaceful strategy with Europe, Russia, and China to circumvent US sanctions or if the regime feared that they would lose power in this scenario and instead needed to maintain a cycle of violence, much in the same way Trump needed to.

Ultimately, I see two axes of terror at play and a lot of innocent lives going to be lost and for what? A few greedy men wanting to retain power (and defense contractors robbing the American taxpayer, yet again).


MDFC Manager said:
I was just going to ask, which are the stocks to invest in?
Click to expand...

Sadly, any stock will likely go up as these actions will lead to an increase in oil prices, which drives everything else up. Lot of 52 week highs achieved today.
 
Kaos said:
Precisely.

Soleimani was a ruthless POS, but let’s not pretend he holds a monopoly over the death and devastation caused in the region and that this aggression was one sided.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for someone to say this. I was shocked to see so many people go on about Soleimani and how he deserved this but no one point out that by this reasoning US leaders deserved to be taken out as well for all the crap they have caused in the region, and many others!
 
Kaos said:
If that were the criteria to justify a state sponsored assassination then there’d hardly be any regional leaders left standing, including the US’ own allies.

I don’t think many will be mourning Soleimani but it does set a dangerous precedence if the US genuinely sought to take out a senior military figure to make a point.
Click to expand...
The precedence set is don't keep attacking the US or they'll take out those involved.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I've been waiting for someone to say this. I was shocked to see so many people go on about Soleimani and how he deserved this but no one point out that by this reasoning US leaders deserved to be taken out as well for all the crap they have caused in the region, and many others!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't shed a tear if something happened to Cheney and Rumsfeld, two war criminals going to the netherworld.
 
InLevyITrust said:
Surely the US would just flatten Iran if it came to that? What's the level of their Nuclear deterrent? Another American war is surely due anyway, their military weapons contractors surely need a boost. Be interesting to see if anything did happen what Boris would do.

Lets hope nothing become of it.
Click to expand...
netanyahu is in trouble politically isn't he... Perhaps a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran could help him in the polls and the USA can provide the troops to go and "protect" the oil and gas supplies.
Suspect Boris will go along for the ride otherwise b.p. won't be getting any of those oilfields
 
Kaos said:
You’re making it sound like Iran have historically been ‘attacking the US’ without provocation or reason.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm obviously against the killing of Americans (or anyone else for that matter) but the Shah was a scumbag and the US propped him up for decades. Reasonable to expect some retaliation.
 
Kaos said:
Precisely.

Soleimani was a ruthless POS, but let’s not pretend he holds a monopoly over the death and devastation caused in the region and that this aggression was one sided.
Click to expand...
Again I'm m not taking sides here on this nor the morality of all actions around the world by not just the US or my own country. All I'm saying is if you are engaged in actions against another country don't be surprised when they retaliate. This is a current situation that's happening.
 
Gambit said:
Again I'm m not taking sides here on this nor the morality of all actions around the world by not just the US or my own country. All I'm saying is if you are engaged in actions against another country don't be surprised when they retaliate. This is a current situation that's happening.
Click to expand...


You're clearly taking sides.
 
Kaos said:
To be fair this means very little to anyone outside the US-Israel-Saudi circle. To the rest of the world he’s a contentious military figure at worst. The US’ take on what makes a terrorist organisation is hardly an objective benchmark either.
Click to expand...

Sure, I was just explaining why the dude shouldn’t have been anywhere near Baghdad in the aftermath of an attack by his boys on the US embassy there. He wasn’t some regular army general, he should have understood that he was a massive target with any number of enemies in Iraq and elsewhere ready to make his whereabouts known. He got cocky, Khamenei too to judge by recent tweets.
 
sport2793 said:
Yep, I'm obviously against the killing of Americans (or anyone else for that matter) but the Shah was a scumbag and the US propped him up for decades. Reasonable to expect some retaliation.
Click to expand...

Shah was 100 times better and more civilized than the current bunch. When protests got big and massive, he actually left Iran with tears and a bag of soil.

This revisionism by Western Leftists that Shah was some sort of one of the most vicious dictators of 20th century is absurd. Yes, he was a dictator, but there were many, many, many significantly worse than him in that decade. He did a lot more good than bad for the country. That's why in the protests Iranians were chanting his father's name. "Reza Shah, Rouhat Shad."
 
Surely the Iraqi's won't be too happy about the US conducting drone strikes just outside a civilan airport.
 
Last edited:
I do genuinely worry about the scale of likely retaliation - The thought of the world's superpowers, armed with nukes, heading for full scale conflict is horrendous.
 
Hanks said:
Shah was 100 times better and more civilized than the current bunch. When protests got big and massive, he actually left Iran with tears and a bag of soil.

This revisionism by Western Leftists that Shah was some sort of one of the most vicious dictators of 20th century is absurd. Yes, he was a dictator, but there were many, many, many significantly worse than him in that decade. He did a lot more good than bad for the country. That's why in the protests Iranians were chanting his father's name. "Reza Shah, Rouhat Shad."
Click to expand...
You’re also conveniently forgetting that Iran used to be a democracy before then until the US/UK saw best to overthrow their elected prime minister and replace him with their puppet the Shah.

Like I said, this goes beyond 1979.
 
2mufc0 said:
Surely the Iraqi's won't be too happy about the US conducting drone strikes just outside a civilan airport.
Click to expand...
They held an emergency Parliament session today, many calling for a complete end to US presence in the region.
 
Utterly reckless act by the peach cnut. It's a scary thought that this impulsive EUPD narcissistic asshole has access to nukes. We should all be scared about the future. Shit start to 2020.
 
MDFC Manager said:
I was just going to ask, which are the stocks to invest in?
Click to expand...
adexkola said:
Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup... Straight cash
Click to expand...

I was thinking about doing the same. What have we become, lads? Thinking about making profit off of a potential conflict that could affect thousands if not millions. I know this is just how the game is played, but god damn...
 
Kaos said:
They held an emergency Parliament session today, many calling for a complete end to US presence in the region.
Click to expand...

To be expected. Many of them are under Iran's influence. Not that this makes the call morally wrong of course, just hypocritical.

The US ain't gonna butt out of the region, that's for sure. World's oil supply is at stake.
 
MadMike said:
I was thinking about doing the same. What have we become, lads? Thinking about making profit off of a potential conflict that could affect thousands if not millions. I know this is just how the game is played, but god damn...
Click to expand...

Yes, quite. Let's not stoop to the levels governments and multinationals do and profit from war.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
I've been waiting for someone to say this. I was shocked to see so many people go on about Soleimani and how he deserved this but no one point out that by this reasoning US leaders deserved to be taken out as well for all the crap they have caused in the region, and many others!
Click to expand...
Why does one outweigh the other? This esrth is better off without all of them.
 
Iran was always on the hit list after dismantling military capabilities of Iraq, Libya, Syria. The PR gurus have worked hard for years to legitimise this naked aggression against so-called evil Iran.
 
Kaos said:
You’re also conveniently forgetting that Iran used to be a democracy before then until the US/UK saw best to overthrow their elected prime minister and replace him with their puppet the Shah.

Like I said, this goes beyond 1979.
Click to expand...

For a grand total of one year. Shah was in power, then he was sidelined and Mosaddeq became PM, and then the coup and Shah back. It's a shame they couldn't work together. It was in fact Shah who first appointed Mosaddeq as the PM in 1951 after he was nominated by the parliament.

I'm not knocking Mosaddegh, but the way people talk about that "one year" of democracy is as we were having decades of Finland-like Liberal Democracy before the CIA coup to bring Mosaddeq down. None of us know how he'd have gone as time went on and he got more powerful. He was off to a great start though, with nationalizing the oil.
 
Dans said:
Yes, quite. Let's not stoop to the levels governments and multinationals do and profit from war.
Click to expand...

Well one bit of consolation for my waning sense of morality is that at least, unlike them, we're not the instigators or even cheerleaders of this. We'd rather it doesn't happen and don't make any money off it. But we're not the ones moving the pieces on that chessboard. We're just going with the flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.