We Were "This Close" Says Iran

You can imagine as you wish. But while I actually wouldn't go as far as what the US military published last year, as I think the "Iraq war" has still not concluded even if Iran has the upper hand, this was the verdict by the US military:
https://qz.com/1530248/us-army-says-iran-won-the-iraq-war/
The US Army says Iran is the only victor of the Iraq War

 

Hmmm - Soleimani was a lightweight compared to some of our Leaders/Diplimate's/Generals. Perhaps we should stay out of his backyard.

When you walk up to a hornets net and hit it with a bat and start smashing - only an idiot expects not to get stung.

Not sure how the OP figures we came out on top of this one ? We hit - they hit back - our relationship with Iraq - which was on life support prior to this incident - took what could be the fatal blow. Glad Iran did not take out one of our diplomat's with links to terror.

Iran also got to demonstrated some technology - in conjunction with the Saudi Arabia refinery attack surpassed impressive - especially given the refinery was defended by the Patriot system.

Then there is violation of the millennia old covenant against taking out your adversaries diplomats/leaders. That's what losing looks like.

 

Oh boy...

 

What on Earth are you talking about? Where did you pull the "covenant against taking out your adversaries diplomats/leaders" mess from? It's untrue and historically proven to be so.

As the OP my point was the lunacy of this Iranian talking head attempting to make it appear American barely escaped destruction at the hand of Iran. It's comical to watch them bluster, tough guys for sure.....

As far as our relationship with Iran, ignoring the actions of said terrorist is not an accepted price to pay to maintain the type of relationship we had with Iran. They seem to understand one thing, power. Be it economic, military or political they were reminded again where they stand. He was a terrorist general, he is dead. Our goal was accomplished. America came out on top.

 

1) were you not aware that throughout history there was a general covenant against killing diplomats ? That is absurd - either disingenuous denial or - more likely - you have not thought about what you are saying. Of course this cov't got broken all the time - but that is not the point.

If you did such a thing you could expect a reaction - up to and often including war - which is why civilized society does not generally engage in these activities.

2) The article does not have Iran saying that we barely escaped destruction - it says that they came "close to the brink" and that "We came close to war" - referencing the back and forth letters between Pompeo and Iran.

3) I said relationship with Iraq - not Iran. The killing of an Iranian diplomat on Iraqi soil provoked a strong reaction from Iraq.

4) We killed an high level Iranian - how is that coming out on top ? Is that how nations should start conducting themselves if they want to "come out on top" ? Should Iran start taking out our high level officials - many who have done far worse than this guy ? Did you think that would be difficult ?

"Oh Oh " but Iran would really get it then" - Oh good - lets get into another regime change war and bankrupt our treasury further.

They fired a bunch of missiles at one of our bases - injuring 100 people - how did we respond ?

Do you think any of the plans of Iran - any actions they were sponsoring - are going to cease because one general was taken out ? That someone else - next in command - is not going to sell IED's to the Shia militia's that Iran backs ?

And why is it that we are bashing this hornets nest with a bat - was there some purpose ?

 

No, I don’t care to address the ethnocentric views of an American who has never left his insignificant, small American town; and who gets his information of the outside world from the boob tube. This whole “abuse of women” is simply a reflection of your own abuse of women. Women in America are bought and paid for for their bodies the second they turn 18; but of course, it’s all good because of “freedom.” So let’s cut the BS, thinking you care about women....

 

America represents “the man,” and “the man” needs to be routinely flipped off. Someone has to do it, and the fact that Iran is still doing it despite all that America has done so far shows that they are indeed “winning.” Until their abilities to flip off “the man” are made obsolete, they will continue to win....

 

There is no question that the main beneficiary of America’s invasion of Iraq has been Iran.

 

Sure, but Iran always does that, just as it loves to bomb embassies
and kill Jews and Iranian dissidents - but 'war' is something Different.

 

Iran is nothing but a pre-medieval theocracy that loves death.

 

Still better than being the devil (America).

 

No country has done more good for the world than the U.S. since it’s founding in 1776. And it’s not even close.

 

Goomba, can you list one to ten the best nation to the worst nation
in your estimation, and why you believe that.
Don't mention any nation that doesn't engage with the world or any
nation that's borderline hunter gatherer.

 

This is what you would call an "emotive" image.
It's designed to manipulate your emotions as opposed
to appeal to your reason. This tells me your head is
wired for emotion.
I am not sure what happens when you show an emotional
person a counter-image.
I find it double offensive in that the emotive person is very
SELECTIVE in the images they employ - as if they aren't
really emotional at all.

 

I’m not interested in such endeavors, as I’m only concerned with Reality; and America represents a particular manifestation of Reality. It’s not about good or bad; best or worst. It’s only about what is.

 

If any country has earned total destruction it is Iran. From 1979 and their taking of our embassy, over four decades of exporting terrorism, committing terrorism, and killing Americans directly and through proxies, they have earned utter destruction. Every single piece of infrastructure should be destroyed and the country reduced to a stone age village. And when I say Every single piece of infrastructure I mean all of it: Every damn, every port, every road and railroad, every bridge, every power plant, every military facility, every factory.. ...every dang thing.

 

In my estimation that marks you as a Marxist - one who is careful never to define things
too carefully, never to provide a proper context and claim they know nothing about issues
that negate your POV.

Marxism went a lot further than dog leashing people. I wish I could create an image that
would represent the 150,000,000 murdered by them. No photo can do such justice.



This, BTW, is an example of Sadaam Hussein's massacres.
The women in your photo, putting a dog leash on a prisoner, was reprimanded
Your friends involved in mass killings were never censured, nor attracted any
attention by people like yourself.

 

I would put America at the top of that list.
For starters it not only is racial diverse, fair, provide the most opportunities,
is wonderfully free, attracts immigrants from all the world (and very few
ever want to leave it)
But most of all - over the past 100 years we have seen the rise of Fascism,
Communism and Islamism. The only nation that stood up to these in the full
was America. I would rather live in South Korea than North Korea, Taiwan
rather than China, Puerto Rico rather than Cuba. And I would rather live in
modern Iraq than in Sadaam's Iraq. How about you, where do YOU live and
where do YOU want to live?

 

1. He was a general not a diplomat. Commanding generals have always neem priority targets.

2. Talking head was implying how close the U.S. came to starting a war with Iran, as if that was a conflict he U.S. would have regretted.

3. Misread that sorry. Seems that the relationship held up.

4. Yes, he not leading any more terror attacks is he? His dead body poses no threat. The message sent was loud and clear. AN enemy not able ot work in the open is able to work less towards harming Americans. It was a huge victory for the U.S. It's not a "next up" position where someone is stepping into his shoes and being as effective. That is not how command, be it military or not works.

5. The purpose was clear. When you strut around in public view beating your chest based on your terrorist actions against the U.S. their will be consequences. That will effect how they operate now. Fear is a wonderful deterrent.

Mission was to make sure this guy was not a threat anymore, he is not. FOr the intel and military sides of U.S. forces. That is a success, can not be called anything but.

 

I think it was an appropriate response to an extremely glib remark.

 

We're not going to do that because then we would own the resulting chaos.

 

That's not an option. We're not mean enough to just level a country and walk away. When have we ever done that? Americans would never accept that. We always end up rebuilding. Iran won't be any different. Which means regime change, which means Iraq 2.0.

Trump knows all this, of course, and he's not going to throw his (admittedly good) chance of reelection away by getting into another MidEast war. If Iran kills our guys, we're going to kill some of theirs. We're not going to "shock and awe" them.

Unless Trump just totally loses it, but in that case, they'll Article 25 him before they let him destroy what's left of the GOP. I predict a lot of tit-for-tat stuff. Iran has already shown they can humiliate us at will. What other country has gotten away with firing missiles at us and hurting our guys (I guess some severely)? Maybe N. Korea? But Trump's already fallen in love with them. We need a new love-less strategy for Iran.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Your perception of reality is based on Western notions of left and right. Ergo, you can only label people according to their alleged socioeconomic stance. Ah, but you cannot label me, as I don’t have a place in your ideological spectrum.

Saddam Hussein is dead and gone. I’m discussing concepts and ideas, while you’re referring to dead nobodys....

 

Can you not simply answer the question. Why do so many Iranian men, and I use that term loosely, think it's acceptable to hit women? It's cowardly and if they did it in "my small American town" they would get their ass beat by a man if they were seen doing it. And if one did it to my family member then the same. Honestly I know of a few women who would not need a man if one of the cowardly Iranian "men" hit them. They would be more than able to take him down, cowards tend to fall quickly when confronted.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-hidden-reality-of-violence-against-women-in-iran/

https://www.rferl.org/a/videos-shed...n-iranian-women-over-dress-code/29816609.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5006439/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iranian-women-still-denie_b_9607430

https://www.voanews.com/middle-east/womens-rights-iran

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/28/womens-rights-iran

"Moreover, married women can’t even leave the country without their husband’s permission. In fact, in September the captain of Iran’s female football (soccer) team, Niloufar Ardalan, couldn’t play in an international tournament in Malaysia because her husband forbade her from traveling."

Why on Earth would a wife need her husbands permission to travel?

You care to defend that? I bet not...just deflect or ignore it. ​

I could post 100 more links. But I think you know the issues already.


I've no ideal what your babbling about with women in America and their bodies, your using your views on morals to judge which is of course utter crap as women have the right to do what they wish with their bodies sexually. They do nto need to ask your permission.