|
Ardennes posted:Remember, exactly almost a year ago, Iran retaliated against the US murder of Solemani with a missile strike and there wasn't further escalation by the US
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Remember, exactly almost a year ago, the US let Iran hit an American base with a missile strike and there wasn't meaningful retaliation. Also remember: that strike was itself retaliation for the US killing General Soleimani and then bragging about it. So it's not like the US just backed down from a strike on a US base. More that it appears US leadership calculated that they were willing to accept some retaliation if they got to kill General Soleimani. Plus, the Iranians aren't dumb! I don't think it was an accident that their strike killed no Americans. Plus, the very unfortunate shootdown of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 put quite a bit of a damper on any rah rah feelings and generally encouraged people to cool it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Also remember: that strike was itself retaliation for the US killing General Soleimani and then bragging about it. So it's not like the US just backed down from a strike on a US base. More that it appears US leadership calculated that they were willing to accept some retaliation if they got to kill General Soleimani. Plus, the Iranians aren't dumb! I don't think it was an accident that their strike killed no Americans. The point is the US had an opening to up the ante, and they backed down and for good reason. The US wasn't ready (and still isn't) to fight any sort of actual conflict in the Persian gulf and Iran does have the ability to offer a response. Also, while Soleimani was an experienced commander, the situation generally backfired for the US: it reduced its influence in Iraq and generally was a humiliation for the once hyper-power. Maybe Trump will just fly off the handle just for the sake of sticking it to Biden, but I doubt the Joint Chiefs of Staff is eager to engage Iranian air defenses and then having to deal with counter-attacks on US installations and the straits of Hormuz being cut off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
When I read about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings in which 241 Americans were killed, I was surprised to see no retaliation. Even if the identity was unknown, I would stil imagine the U.S. bombing something just to get revenge and satiate the American public. Recall the US-led terrorist strike on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory which had nothing to do with the 1998 Embassy bombings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:When I read about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings in which 241 Americans were killed, I was surprised to see no retaliation. well a few years ago the US did assassinate one of the people it blamed for being involved in the bombing. I'm sure they've done other various actions aimed at those they deemed responsible, although since a lot of them were subtle or occurred many years later that might not really be the kind of thing you are thinking of
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
Armenian positions are being dismantled at Azerbaijani side of border near Kapan, Sinyuk region. Demarcation according to GPS positions of Soviet times border Armenia is continuing to withdraw while The Armenian PM is giving bullshit 'no steps back' calls. So the idiot is furthering his descent into "stab in the back" territory. This is not over. Armenians are also continuing to be arrested by Azers and taken across the azeri lines to parts unknown. Bargaining chips most likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
FiskTireBoy posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Israel is putting a ton of pressure on Trump to bomb Iran as they know this is probably the last chance they will get to get the US to do it for them (at least until Republican is in the White House). Also what better way to sabotage the incoming administration then to have them coming in on day one with a massive foreign policy crisis? Poor Donald, he wants to do the right thing, but all that Israeli pressure...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, while Soleimani was an experienced commander, the situation generally backfired for the US: it reduced its influence in Iraq and generally was a humiliation for the once hyper-power. A humiliation ... for the US? All I remember is that it was internationally humiliating for Iran, since they shot down a civilian airliner and did an incompetent coverup that they had to quickly come clean on, and they did not get a "tit for tat" retaliation against the US in any meaningful way,
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
Saladman posted:A humiliation ... for the US? All I remember is that it was internationally humiliating for Iran, since they shot down a civilian airliner and did an incompetent coverup that they had to quickly come clean on, and they did not get a "tit for tat" retaliation against the US in any meaningful way, Eh yeah the US embassy was partially overrun, over 100+ US military personnel were injured in a precision strike, the US lost a significant amount of influence in Iraq (perhaps permanently) and are in the middle of troop withdrawals after being asked to leave by the Iraqi government...it didn't go well. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh yeah the US embassy was partially overrun, over 100+ US military personnel were injured in a precision strike, the US lost a significant amount of influence in Iraq (perhaps permanently) and are in the middle of troop withdrawals after being asked to leave by the Iraqi government...it didn't go well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is the sort of incredibly weird take I come here for. Yeah certainly it is weird to people think it was anything but a debacle. It is also why I don't really think the US has an interest in getting into a more serious conflict in the Gulf unless there is a serious build up and even then I am doubtful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The point is the US had an opening to up the ante, and they backed down and for good reason. This is still such a bad and weird framing. The US killed the commander of the IRGC, bragged, and accepted that there would be some level of retaliation. Technically just about any nation has a chance to “up the ante” at any time. “Backed down” from what? If you’re dancing around saying the US was on the verge of starting a deliberate hot war and then changed their mind, that’s a dumb take. It’s not exactly a hot take to say that neither the US nor Iran wants a full up war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is still such a bad and weird framing. The US by approving the assassination at least allowed the opportunity for a larger conflict by provoking it in the first place and backed down from further hits on Iraqi soil (exacerbating the conflict) after how poorly it was received. In addition, they had a rhetorical opportunity to use Iranian strikes as an opening for further retaliation, but they didn't and part of that is simply that the US was completely unprepared for a genuine conflict. The ultimate result was still a clear net loss for American influence in both Iraq and the region. It also communicates that even before that net loss that the US' influence in the region was already eroded beforehand. Ultimately, they didn't want a hot war then and don't want one now because at least in part the US was and still is simply unprepared to fight one. The smart thing would have been to have not to do the assassination in the first place, but it was hardly the first blunder in recent years. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
The US did what they wanted to do, all but teabagged the guy afterwards, and all the Iranians did in response was a symbolic missile attack and making themselves look like idiots by accidentally killing some of their own civilians. They looked absolutely impotent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The US by approving the assassination at least allowed the opportunity for a larger conflict by provoking it in the first place and backed down from further hits on Iraqi soil (exacerbating the conflict) after how poorly it was received. I’m not trying to make some hawk argument or rah rah America argument, but your basic facts are bad. Iranian-associated militia groups conducted attacks, including an attack that killed two American citizens, a British Army medic, and two Iraqi security forces in Taji. This was separate from the Iranian state missile strikes and the US struck back hard, killing a fair number of militia members. US forces then bombed multiple KH sites and killed a fair number of people while doing so. No disagreement that neither Iran nor the US are trying to escalate to a full war, but you’re omitting and mischaracterizing important events. The risk assumed by both the US and Iran-aligned forces is quite a bit different than between the nations of US and Iran. The US isn’t trying to get into a full militia group war, either, but has repeatedly proven willing to react with greater force when a harassing rocket attack or the like produces casualties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:The US did what they wanted to do, all but teabagged the guy afterwards, and all the Iranians did in response was a symbolic missile attack and making themselves look like idiots by accidentally killing some of their own civilians. They looked absolutely impotent. That and having Iraq turn against it, which was confidentially followed by troop withdrawals to the point there are now 3,000 US troops left in the country. The US wanted to make a big show and what they got in response was a backlash. Iran for looking "impotent" was able to expand its influence. mlmp08 posted:I’m not trying to make some hawk argument or rah rah America argument, but your basic facts are bad. Yeah, I don't think you contradicted what I am saying here. The problem was that response became to spiral into a higher stakes game that the US just wasn't prepared to fight and the assassination was a sudden and poorly advised escalation of what had been a brewing proxy conflict. If anything, the US arguably trapped itself by getting dragged down in a fight with the militias in the first place then the assassination happened thereby escalating the situation into something that couldn't be contained. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That and having Iraq turn against it, which was confidentially followed by troop withdrawals to the point there are now 3,000 US troops left in the country. The US wanted to make a big show and what they got in response was a backlash. Iran for looking "impotent" was able to expand its influence. You're mixing a lot of complicated issues into a short-hand version, and it's not accurate or terribly useful. The US has wanted to draw down the Defeat ISIS footprint for a long time. Trump has been saying he wanted out since like... before he got elected? And, to the surprise of the DOD, he rather rapidly drew down in Syria, and that had essentially zero to do with Iran. Iraq has also had to deal with political tension, because they're not stupid, and they know that the forces in Iraq aren't 100% there to defeat ISIS and help Iraq, because that's how the world works. Iraq's resolution to have US forces leave was nonbinding. A lot of Iraqi military leadership does not want to see the US fully leave, because, well, they had a real bad time with ISIS for a long time. Also the Iraqi military is split on support of Iranian-associated groups. OK with having them fighting ISIS or generally keeping peace, but maybe not so happy with Iranian influence overall. It sucks to be Iraq, stuck between the US, Iran, and also a bunch of rear end in a top hat terrorists like ISIS. The drawdown of US forces in Iraq has been writing on the wall for a couple years now. Additionally, it wasn't like January is when Iran gained a ton of influence. The US Army's own report from about two years ago was essentially "Iran won the Iraq War."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You're mixing a lot of complicated issues into a short-hand version, and it's not accurate or terribly useful. I get this is a face-saving thing, but it was clear that the backlash from the assassination put more emphasis on the withdrawals even if they had planned to some degree and part of that is simply that American influence inside the Iraq itself eroded in the first place. The fact that the withdrawals started in earnest in early March speaks to the heightened priority even if the January resolution was non-binding. The thing is the Iraq government was a lot more split before the assassination happened and the Iranians clearly have been able to use it to their advantage. It is also why I think the assumption of Iranian "impotence" is rather concerning, and I think shows a more emotional response than an honest look at the factors on the ground which are not to the US' advantage. To be clear, I am not saying the US is somehow impotent itself in the region, there are still plenty of US bases and vessels in the gulf but the balance of power may have shifted to the point where a direct conflict is clearly inadvisable. Granted, as a sidenote, there is also the argument to make that having so many US naval assets in the Gulf itself is an increasing strategic liability in terms of resources and at least some of them need to be redeployed to the Indian ocean/Western Pacific simply as the PLAN starts to push outwards. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is also why I think the assumption of Iranian "impotence" is rather concerning, and I think shows a more emotional response than an honest look at the factors on the ground which are not to the US' advantage. That I agree with. Hell, even pro-war hawks don’t say that because then they’d have less of an argument to be hawks at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The thing is the Iraq government was a lot more split before the assassination happened and the Iranians clearly have been able to use it to their advantage. They were still pretty split after the assassination. Only 172 representatives out of 329 were in session when they voted on that non-binding resolution. The Iraqi parliament has a summary of that session directly on their own website which is kind of nice to see: https://ar.parliament.iq/2020/01/05...7v1HQPKLqhSunCV I don't know why the attendance was so low, so I don't know if the 157 abstentions actually mean anything or if parliament has poor attendance. It looks like the absences were political though ( https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/consequences-of-iraqs-vote-to-end-coalition-troop-presence/ ), in which case 172 for vs. 157 against doesn't exactly look like the Iraqi government suddenly aligned against the US military.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Saladman posted:They were still pretty split after the assassination. Only 172 representatives out of 329 were in session when they voted on that non-binding resolution. The Iraqi parliament has a summary of that session directly on their own website which is kind of nice to see: It is more that the balance of power shifted in Iran's favor, but that is a still necessary victory for the Iranians. The last election (2018) was comparatively a much more favorable result for the US. (Also, it is saying something that they were abstentions not an active vote.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
it seems like if trump wanted to gently caress poo poo up hard for biden all he would need to do is order some kind of insane attack on iran in the next few weeks right? like couldnt he literally order it on a whim at any moment without really needing to plan ahead?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Kanine posted:it seems like if trump wanted to gently caress poo poo up hard for biden all he would need to do is order some kind of insane attack on iran in the next few weeks right? An airstrike? Sure. An actual ground invasion or attack? Those take months to prepare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Kanine posted:it seems like if trump wanted to gently caress poo poo up hard for biden all he would need to do is order some kind of insane attack on iran in the next few weeks right? Airstrikes can happen almost any time on Iran if the US wanted to do it. We have quite a few airbases in neighboring countries and usually have at least one carrier in the Persian Gulf at all times. And normally when there's talk of possible airstrikes on Iran I don't give it much credit as it seems we've been on the brink of doing it numerous times in the past only to back off. The weird thing about this time is the fact the pentagon stopped giving briefings to Biden. It makes me think their current briefings might include something about hitting Iran. I guess they don't want Biden to know about how they plan to leave him a giant poo poo sandwich when he arrives at the white house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:(Also, it is saying something that they were abstentions not an active vote.) Yeah claiming the abstentions had no meaning, with nothing but conjecture to back it up, is the most ridiculous poo poo I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. TFSA Is attacking Kurd positions in Jahaba. major attack reported.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 09:34
|
|
|
Syria deeply dissapointed me in 2011 and now is going to dissapoint me again in 2021.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 09:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Eh yeah the US embassy was partially overrun, over 100+ US military personnel were injured in a precision strike, the US lost a significant amount of influence in Iraq (perhaps permanently) and are in the middle of troop withdrawals after being asked to leave by the Iraqi government...it didn't go well. I’ve seen the exact opposite take from Washington establishment publications like Foreign Policy, mostly published a few months after. That is they reported Soleimani’s death seemed to have left the Iranian networks in disarray and permanently weakened as they were heavily based on his personal relationships. This emboldened US allies in Iraq and contributed to a containment of militia influence in the current government. Even if you don’t agree with that take looking back hardly anything seems to have changed in the balance of power in Iraq which suggests the medium term impact has been practically nothing
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I’ve seen the exact opposite take from Washington establishment publications like Foreign Policy, mostly published a few months after. That is they reported Soleimani’s death seemed to have left the Iranian networks in disarray and permanently weakened as they were heavily based on his personal relationships. This emboldened US allies in Iraq and contributed to a containment of militia influence in the current government. It saved Iran if anything and took enthusiasm out of the once growing anti-Iranian movement. The US was if anything slowly pushing the Iranians out with the help of Al Sadr but he has to pivot since American actions were so aggressive. The current government is still largely a caretaker government and the real test is the next election. To be clear, I don’t think the US is “out of it” but the assassination and its blowback if anything seemed to have taken the heat off the Iranians and placed it far more on the US and it’s allies. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Dec 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 16:11
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Yeah claiming the abstentions had no meaning, with nothing but conjecture to back it up, is the most ridiculous poo poo I've ever heard. Especially when the abstentions read locally much more as "we don't want to commit to kicking anyone out of anywhere, but none of us feel like being the nail sticking up when there are very, very angry and vengeful militia hammers walking around."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Syria deeply dissapointed me in 2011 and now is going to dissapoint me again in 2021. We all know that this conflict has been very hard on you + your GPA
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
I guess Iran wasn't able to resist that Israeli pressure to screw Joe Biden either. https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/rockets-target-us-embassy-in-baghdad-20201221-p56p55.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It saved Iran if anything and took enthusiasm out of the once growing anti-Iranian movement. The US was if anything slowly pushing the Iranians out with the help of Al Sadr but he has to pivot since American actions were so aggressive. This is true but again you are ignoring how it effected subsequent intra-militia politics, which has as Mitch to do with the simultaneous death of Soliemani’s PMF college al-Muhandis. See chapter 4 in this report https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/master-iraq-edited-volume-.pdf Yes it brought most of the Shia political blocs together against the US in the short term, but they haven’t really been able to turn that into much action. Meanwhile the Sunni Arab and Kurdish factions never gave a drat about those guys, and subsequent intrigue between Tehran and Najaf is still driving wedges between Shia factions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/qKzU-cuoSR0
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
yes, what would you like to say about it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:We all know that this conflict has been very hard on you + your GPA Be nice. Grouchio and this thread graduated a couple years ago, afaik
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel bad making fun of Groucho because part of the reason his posts are so bad is his anxiety disorder and autism, but then I realize that based on his opinions he’s also a terrible person and deserves to be ruthlessly mocked It just means I have to be mindful I’m only attacking him as a person, rather than his other issues. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Squalid fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
the gently caress is wrong with you squalid, jfc
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2020 08:02
|
|
|
So I'm seeing chatter about President Rouhani reportedly threatening Trump with death. I have not seen video or a native transcript in Farsi of this statement which reportedly occurred a few days ago. Nor would I understand it as a non-Farsi speaker myself. For anyone interested in a homework assignment I would be interested in a Farsi speakers take on the of that statement. I'm curious if it's one of these idiomatic expressions that gets handled wrong by fringe US press. Context: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/456465/Tehran-dismisses-Rouhani-death-threat-against-Trump-as-fake
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Did the Washington Times article have a source for the claim?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2021 19:40
|
|
