Does anyone else think that the US should go 10 for 1 on this 1 or 2 just me

Retals with sanctions is cheaper.

My 2 cents, the Iranians luanched the missiles to placate the domestic demand for revenge but missed on purpose to avoid US casualites. Gives both sides a chance to deseclate the situation.

Exactly what I thought had happened, well played by both sides.

The early warning system the trumpet mentioned was the Iranian leader's phone call to evacuate our troops ;-)

There are 2 sides in Iran in conflict with one another; the often religious hardliners vs the progressives. When Trump hits Iran it boosts the hardliners. That was the beauty of the now broken Iran deal that Obama signed, It showed that Iran could prosper by peaceful means... Gave the progressives in Iran and the rest of the world a win. And dont let them tell you the deal was fluff. The deal in terms of uranium enrichment regulation was solid. The uranium enrichment facilities were regularily inspected and Iran, led by the emboldened progressives who doesn't even want nukes, and they were indeed not enriching Uranium to any concentrations that could be used to build nukes - which was the purpose of the deal.

In the eyes of the whole world Trump started this conflict. First he talk about breaking the deal, then he did it. Then he retaliate against Iran for shooting down unmanned drones in their airspace. The whole point of unmanned drones is that they can be shot down without a loss of human life. The hardliners got strengthened they are gaining more and more control.

Everyone thought Iran was the irresponsible actor that couldn't be trusted 10 years ago, chanting death to Israel/USA, now the US is the irresponsible actor.

Ohh well Iran has given him one last chance to deescalate it seems... will he take it?

Either way he is playing a dangerous game with a nation that could have been more or less benign if the progressive forces were given more victories. Rouhani will soon be exchanged for a new president, It may be another Ahmadinejad, and if it is that is mostly Trumps fault and it will be another 10 years of conflict, terrorism, threats and nuclear proliferation.

Giving them all that money with no checks and balances was good? Are you fluffing kidding me? That regime sponsors terrorist organizations, you really think that money didn't get funneled to the terrorist groups??? Are you serious???

The US regime sponsors terrorist organisations too. Its all in the eye of the beholder. You have been in a proxy war with Iran since the Syrian war started. That was unavoidable. You have been sponsoring groups that were terrorists to them, and they have been sponsoring groups that were terrorists to you. That was true under Obama and it was true under Trump.

Ok LOL, that's how we justify Obama's cash to the terrorists, got it.

And as for the money it doesnt matter which money was used. Its semantics.

But also there was no 100-150 billion dollars given to Iran as the Trumpet keeps claiming. Thats a lie. It was Iranian assets, owned by companies and private citizens as well as I suppose the Iranian government, that had been frozen as part of the sanctions that were lifted when the deal was made.

For better or worse you fought in two wars against their neighbors who they are friendly with, and you call them terrorists for helping their friends(Assad and their Jemenese friends). At least use the same ruler for yourself then.
Im not saying what you have done in those conflicts were wrong, or that what Iran did was right or wrong. But you were fighting a proxy war against them since you attacked their interests. Thats all fine, messy but fine. But you did the same things to them that you are now calling them terrorists for doing to you. The whole term terrorist is flawed in this case.

Flying into skyscrapers killing near-only civilians or driving trucks through civilians, that is terrorism. Attacking military personel that is waging war against you cant be terrorism. The word becomes devoid of its meaning if you apply it to every enemy combatant.

Ok I get, you justified the world's favorite American president support for terrorists, got it, moving along now, there won't be another gulf war, it's too expensive.

I would rather not start a war with a country that possesses nukes. Just my random thought.

They don't have nukes, they said so themselves, you got to believe in them, it's what we have to do...just believe.

Ya I imagine they do lol

sure except you muricans need iranian oil (directly or undirectly).

Where do you get your information??? LOL

like us isn't buying oil where it can get it.

I think Gerdler is approaching the point but primarily the issue is our standing with our allies in the region and not much else imo. It's a big win for Russia that stems from the syrian civil war.

While iraq feels that america has tampered with their sovereignty and they wish to expel us, the turks have said politically motivated assassinations are a war crime.

When we established the syrian safe zone, and pulled our troops out, we established a front against isis where traditional enemies (turkey and iran) held the front together with russian support. Meanwhile iran was making several regional allies and fighting for courtship of Iraq's new government.

A move like this, as indicated by a rare meeting between assad and putin, is a bad move for our foothold in the region. It sets the stage for iraq and turkey to turn their backs on us, while traditional allies such as Britain complain about not being informed.

Turning our backs on kurdish fighters in syria also set the stage for a saudi operation there. We've basically lost every ally in the region beginning with the destruction of the iran nuclear deal and finishing here. Without the feeling of the us protecting their sovereignty, it seems highly likely that everyone will turn to russia to restore confidence against threats like isis.

Honestly it doesn't seem like this assassination did a lot to advance our foreign policy interests, but the fallout from it largely seems to be just major losses in foreign policy for essentially no gain.

No amount of explaining this will placate the naysayers.

Do you anti trumpers actually believe the nonsense you spew ?

Trump could legit cure cancer and you would cry that he’s ruining the pharmaceutical market and hurting the economy and all the researchers and scientists losing their jobs !

https://pbs.twimg.com/...ENyjnDFX0AYCDmQ.jpg:large

In all seriousness, if the US and Iran were a tag here on EE - which ones would they be?

Glad they killed that Iranian. Found IEDs and efps that came from Iran back in 06-08. Glad we have a leader that stands up to iran and not bendover for them.

Yes, that's why they supported Hillary and would do it again no questions asked without a doubt in a heartbeat again.

Right? I'm mind blown by the fact that the left is upset that piece of fluff terrorist was taken out, I bet if Obama was in office they would be gloating about it, that's how stupid Trump derangement syndrome makes these people, my brother that was in Iraq right about that time actually mentioned same thing to me regarding the IED and went as far as telling me Tehran was behind that fluff. Yeah fluff you terrorists!

I think you're confusing concern for the disregard of due process/international law in killing an Iranian national rather than a mourning of the death of the man that Soleimani was. Like Gerdler says, you call him a terrorist but Iran calls him a national hero. Trump is your hero, but Iran likely sees him a the Terrorist in Chief.

Imagine the Iranian Army assassinating whoever the leader of US forces is in Iraq (Gen. Lloyd J. Austin?). They'd paint him a terrorist and a casualty of war, you'd call it murder and demand justice be served upon Iran.

It's literally one of the least complex pieces of this whole puzzle to understand but politics is forcing people to bury their heads in the sand because you're either with Trump or against him.

That dude was a terrorist through and through, and I'm not solely on the Trump camp, I don't agree with many of his views and how he conducts himself, that is funny though because people such as you will put me in his camp just because I despise everything Clinton related, same goes for the Bush family, I actually put both Bush and Clinton cartels in same category, my fluff list.

So now my question to you is, where do you put me now that you know where I stand?

I doubt very seriously that the left would take such a brazen approach, but i hear you and think you're correct. Listening to the left call this fluffer anything other than a fluffer is super annoying. Soleimani was even more than an international piece of fluff, he was a tyrant to his own people. He's a full on fluffer. I'm happy he is dead.

That said, i think going behind our allies backs to assassinate someone, inspire their followers in solidarity, and demolish our foreign policy in the region without congressional approval is a bit extreme. That seems a bit like asshole a killing asshole b for political motivations and thats........bad.

Was trump losing the iranian nuclear deal, losing allies in iraq and turkey, losing the trust of our European allies, losing the kurds, etc. Were these kills and fluff worth it? Idk. Only time will tell.

I'm literally in a smoking bar listening to tucker carlson explain how our fluff in that region basically handed the iran/russia/china triad iraq and turkey. At least fox gets it hahaha

I'll leave you wherever it is you want to stand - it's not my place to tell you where you want to be. I don't see your dislike for the Clinton and Bush families as being relevant to your support for Trump, or vice versa. Nor does it impact that I think your statement about the "left [being] upset that a piece of fluff terrorist was taken out" ignores largely that condemnation of Trump's actions doesn't also imply sympathy and support for Soleimani - because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of Iran and its allies that would speak highly of a man with the track record he had.

In fact, a lot of public criticism from politicians etc I saw came with an explicit admission that, while they don't agree with how Trump went about it, they won't be mourning the death of a man (allegedly?) responsible for the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands, of US and allied servicemen and women. People, Left included, recognised that Soleimani was a dangerous man and a threat to peace and stability - but does that mean they have to then sit comfortably while the current US President green lights the assassination of this Iranian on Iraqi soil? Especially when it potentially comes with the consequences it might still have? No.

Since when do US presidents need approval to assassinate people? And since when would congress deny them that approval? Told you a long time ago that they're all war criminals and should be locked up, but people only seem to care when it's politically convienent for them in order to make an argument against a guy they dislike. US political parties and their idiot followers remind me of sports. You'd cheer for the stars if they were on your team no matter how despicable they are, but you hate them when they're on the other guys team. Either way, it's completely lost on you that you've been conned and the entire thing is a game that you take way too seriously.

PS: Have you guys actually asked any Iranian nationals about how much they care about the Iranian nuclear deal? I literally hang out with a group of Persians every day and not once have they brought it up.

As for the thread topic, it was a DH, Clan USA will probably let it slide.

Lol the sanctions included medicines and at the time the sanctions were lifted all my Iranian colleagues were celebrating and cheerful at work. One of them even baked for everyone to mark the occasion. According to her her father had died due to the sanctions making it difficult to get the medicine he needed, Im not sure but i think it was insulin.

So I dont know what persians you are talking with but certainly it mattered to some.

So you're talking about the economic sanctions now? A couple of posts ago it was all about how they just wanted to enrich a little uranium. Talking points are talking points, I guess

I think LaF is the US and SoF their first set back is Iran

LaF would be the US if marshal was their FA, and Iran is like imag or something, sof first set back is china, elders is israel, sol is russia, stones is france, monsters is germany, omega is luxembourg, pdm with mrcuban as head was Chile with Pinochet and now pdm is Chile post-Pinochet

Maybe you are not familiar with the deal but i am. The international community including US posed restrictions on irans uranium enrichment facilities and IN RETURN the sanctions were partially lifted which meant they could sell their oil more freely and they could import and export goods they were not allowed to before. Also frozen assets were unfrozen.

You see both sides got what they wanted.

I am familiar with the deal; however, the deal had a primary purpose. Do you think anyone in Trump's base would care about the Iran SWIFT deal (or even be familiar with what SWIFT is?)? Nope. Again, find me an Iranian that cares about enriching uranium and then talk about it. Don't point out how enriching uranium is so damn important to them because it gives them access to the international monetary system. That's a talking point.

Elders/mercs is the US
LaF is Israel
SoF is Iran
Sol is the kurds
Stones is kuwait



I don't recall any political assassinations of foreign leaders by a US president in my tenure of consciousness, but I'm not always fully sober so mayhaps I've forgotten one. I think you know I'd rather think about the ramifications than the actual heinous act tho. Such is the times....

Iran launched some missiles to appease their people that seemed to have intentionally missed our people. Maybe the posturing was exactly what we needed for world peace and trump is indeed the stable genius who facilitated it. It could happen. Otherwise it was sort of a cowardly act that undermines iraqi sovereignty and destabilizes our alliances in the region. And seriously. ONLY TIME WILL TELL ON THIS ONE FOLKS. I'm fluffing baffled but no country wants world war 3 so let's roll those fluffin dice and see what happens hahaha.

That's typically not how good foreign policy works but this seems to have pretty extreme outcomes. I feel unfortunate to have to live through it.

Considering everyone has the technology to eliminate like a whole country in a second, world war 3 can't happen, you see. The true genius of einstein was that introducing world destroying technology and proliferating it would essentially make people de-escalate rather than destroy the world.

So here we are and who knows how it gets worked out. I mean fluff. Who wants to live thru that come to jesus moment. Brutal times.

If you're going to call Soleimani a foreign leader (wot?), then you should seriously look at the long list of dead bodies left by past and current US politicians all over the world. I have no problem with labeling these things unprosecutable war crimes, but don't act like it's unique to Trump. That's mock outrage. Either most of these guys dating back at least as far as Woodrow Wilson are clearly war criminals or none of them are. Don't pretend like this is something new or unique or unsanctioned by a congress that has traditionally been a breeding ground for pay-for-war political hacks.

Man again, i have always called a spade a spade on the war crimes deal. I'm not like shocked or surprised of a president committing a war crime. That's typical.

But like....Iran is a UN nation. This isnt some non-established, archaic cave people. Tehran is an actual ass city and persians created music and language. Great super relevant fiction currently comes out of Iran and some of my favorite artists live there as well.

Assassinating person number like 5 in terms of political clout in an industrialized nation is pretty next level. You can kill a thousand muscle but you never touch the dons.

Again. We'll see how it turns out.

I still can't help but feel like the US was baited into a political assassination that handed russia the entire west's alliance network in the region.

You guys remember the slit wars right?

Hopeful time proves me wrong.

The assassination itself is nothing I really care about. Its the intent of the whole escalation that is complete fluff through and through, and if not completely DTs fault it was certainly possible to avoid. Like when those sailors violated Iranian waters in 2016 by mistake and the Iranians let them go unharmed. Donald Trump said it made the US look weak and he would have handled it another way, and I think no one doubts it. He would have used that situation which the previous administration manuvered to bring home all their personel and equipment unharmed in a matter of hours, to escalate it into a broader conflict as we have seen over the past few years.

The specific action or words used need not be criticised when the intent is all wrong through and through.

WE CAME WE SAW HE DIED.

sick and tired of this bullfluff selective outrage.

where was the outrage when obama ran up the strike count in syria to over 3000?


why do you leftards only apply the rules in one direction

edit: actually sinistril has made my point more eloquently..ill shutup now

Nah most of the Iranians are not calling that guy a hero..... the news here might tell you that. But an Iranian living in fear of their own military and government....will tell you different.

The whole lot of them needs to be bumped off the Earth.

My brother works with some and would agree with your statement.

Anyone here upset about how the U.S. handled Libya?

Yeah, I should correct my statement to be that the Iranian state calls Soleimani a hero. Some Iranians might agree but definitely not all.