• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US strike kills Iranian Quds Force commander

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pmv said:
Yes, the Shah was a 'modernizer'. He was also a deeply unpopular torturing despot imposed on Iran by the West (mainly the CIA). Of course the educated middle-classes of Tehran dressed in Western clothing - how did the non-elite working class and riural peasantry feel about that though?
Click to expand...
The peasantry clearly rejected it, which is why that educated middle class largely fled to the United States. British oil interests is what led to American intervention. In the end, did that peasantry suffer more or less?

Western self-interested meddling again-and-again manages to associate Western values with brutality and oppression and national humiliation. That tragedy has happened repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Agreed, foreign intervention often leads to tragedy, and a ripple effect of unintended or unanticipated consequences.
 
Apparently there was a third US strike near Sinjar. The second one was near Taji. The second and third were targeting Iraqi milita leaders.
 
Here's some info to ponder on as Trump escalates his war with Iran and against his own repeated words of wanting to bring our troops home:

www.theatlantic.com

Top Military Officers Unload on Trump

The commander in chief is impulsive, disdains expertise, and gets his intelligence briefings from Fox News. What does this mean for those on the front lines?
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com


This is what our military leaders have to contend with in the likes of Trump and this is what they are going to have to deal with if and when we do escalate hostilities at Trump's direction. Thousands more troops being sent. No one one knows how many thousands more will follow.

Trump is already fighting his own personal war of impeachment here at home let alone try to manage a new war in the Middle East. Logic would follow that the two are tied together with Trump at the center of this self-made maelstrom. One can only conclude that he's doing this as a matter of self-preservation.
 
Jaskalas said:
W. T. F.

Anyone remember us declaring war on Iraq? I mean recently of course. To justify our acts of war.
Click to expand...
wow.. 2 more airstrikes in the same day a the one that killed the Iran general.
well, at least Trump is consistent in over reacting to Iraqi protests
 
Jaskalas said:
Iraqi parliament vows to ‘put an end to US presence' in country

Trump genius master stroke to kick the United States out of the Middle East?
One can only hope we GTFO with our tail between our legs. Only possible benefit to this disaster. But only if we listen to Iraq.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213090993324666881
Click to expand...

For all of the speculation about the ways in which Iran might retaliate, it seems the most obvious and easiest thing for Iran's government to do for the moment is to destabilize Iraq and turn people against the US-leaning government. It would put pressure on Iraq's government to step back from US support, and things get out of control, it would endanger the security for the 5000-6000 US troops still there.
 
Have any Trump Republicans try to pull the "This "impeachment" crap should be set aside until we deal with this real problem - The President has important things to deal with right now and your silly trial is a dangerous diversion!" angle? Have there been any accusations that the impeachment process is an unnecessary diversion from this escalation of hostilities yet?
 
UNCjigga said:
And right on queue, the Administration is using 9/11 as a justification for assassinating Suleiman. Haven’t fact checked this yet, but there were 19 hijackers (not 12) and I’m not sure why Wahabbi Sunni Saudis would rely on Iran for safe passage thru Afghanistan.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213189757708189699

I for one am intrigued by Trump suddenly adopting Bush’s foreign policy in an election year. Bold strategy, Cotton.
Click to expand...


Are they dusting off the same playbook from 17 years ago to beguile the public into supporting another unnecessary war. Are we to get ready for variants of - "you're either with us or against us", " we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud", "it's unpatriotic to oppose the president when we're at war", and "we can't change horses midstream".
 
VRAMdemon said:
For all of the speculation about the ways in which Iran might retaliate, it seems the most obvious and easiest thing for Iran's government to do for the moment is to destabilize Iraq and turn people against the US-leaning government. It would put pressure on Iraq's government to step back from US support, and things get out of control, it would endanger the security for the 5000-6000 US troops still there.
Click to expand...

Iraqi parliament is already looking to pass legislation and has already condemned our action.
 
VRAMdemon said:
Are they dusting off the same playbook from 17 years ago to beguile the public into supporting another unnecessary war. Are we to get ready for variants of - "you're either with us or against us", " we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud", "it's unpatriotic to oppose the president when we're at war", and "we can't change horses midstream".
Click to expand...

They can try it but the only people who will be buying it already support their cult leader no matter what he does.
 
Last edited:
K1052 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1213264835137462272

JFC

Plus the admin is making wild claims to congress that Soleimani was planning a massive, and seemingly illogical, escalation in order to justify the action. They provide no proof to back this up. Going out on a limb here to say it's almost certainly bullshit.
Click to expand...

Yeah - right now, I'm not buying it. Taking out Soleimani doesn't prevent them occurring in any way. If these "massive" attacks were already planned, surely taking out Soleimani would have been reason to carry out these attacks by now.

It's also possible that in Trumps "personal" conversation with Putin, he put in his head that these attacks were being planned and with out any verification - he believed him.
 
Last edited:
JSt0rm said:
Lets talk about the very recent last 30 years. Like the modern gop. If you want to go back to the beginning of the country you are only doing it because you dont like the last 20-30 years of war history.
Click to expand...
STFU. You don’t know my motives. I asked you specifically what you meant earlier, but you ignored that post. Obviously, I detest our recent involvement in the middle east, especially what Bush II wrought, but I already said that. You are inventing some bullshit here because what? I’m not pissed off enough at the GOP? Because I take a longer view of history? WTF is your deal.
 
Right now on Hannity, Oliver f'n North is talking about how evil this guy was. What, the same f'n EVIL man you sold arms to back in the 80"s? God what a bunch a hypocritical douche-bags.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top