Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #1 
USA and Iran are on the brink of war after Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general, was killed by the US Air Force.
USA going to war against Iran will not trigger a World War III, because neither Russia nor China will go to war against USA for the sake of Iran. Russia maintains friendly relations with the Iranian regime, but Iran isn't a close ally of Russia. Russia is neutral in the conflict between Iran and Israel, and Saudi Arabia has improved its relations with Russia in recent years.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/putin-visits-saudi-arabia-sign-growing-ties-191014171206513.html
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,496
Reply with quote  #2 
Neither side is likely to go to open war, Iran would have zero prospect of victory and a certainty of its already shaky economy being reduced to tatters, along with much of the country's infrastructure. And the US would not relish the prospect of invading a large, populous and extremely mountainous country with numerous men under arms and some fairly advanced weaponry. More likely Iran will escalate the undeclared war it has been pursuing for lo these many years now, and scream to the high heavens (accompanied by a murmuring chorus of support from Western media) about the US retaliation that will surely follow.

It seems clear to me that while Soleimani very badly needed killing, the timing of the operation had quite a lot to do with President Trump's impending impeachment. To my surprise, I haven't seen that connection drawn in any media reports.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Neither side is likely to go to open war, Iran would have zero prospect of victory and a certainty of its already shaky economy being reduced to tatters, along with much of the country's infrastructure. And the US would not relish the prospect of invading a large, populous and extremely mountainous country with numerous men under arms and some fairly advanced weaponry. More likely Iran will escalate the undeclared war it has been pursuing for lo these many years now, and scream to the high heavens (accompanied by a murmuring chorus of support from Western media) about the US retaliation that will surely follow.

It seems clear to me that while Soleimani very badly needed killing, the timing of the operation had quite a lot to do with President Trump's impending impeachment. To my surprise, I haven't seen that connection drawn in any media reports.

You may be right, but I won't rule out USA invading Iran.
A majority of the members of the parliament of Iraq will vote in favour of expelling US troops from Iraq. The Kurdish members of the Iraqi parliament are opposed to expelling US troops from Iraq.
https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/05012020


Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
 the timing of the operation had quite a lot to do with President Trump's impending impeachment. To my surprise, I haven't seen that connection drawn in any media reports.


The connection has been commented on, here & there, in the US media, but more in the context of President Trump's obsession with engineering the outcome of the 2020 election. In light of the President's self-serving histrionics over the past few years, such a deliberate and dangerous provocation to war must either align with or further some goal that is 100% Trump-centric.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #5 
I doubt it had much to do with impeachment. Trump barely needs to distract from that farce. It has already pretty much fizzled out, to the point where Pelosi hasn't even handed over the articles yet. For all the noise they made, they couldn't even come up with a criminal allegation. It had more to do with the attack on the embassy and Trump's desire to avoid another Benghazi. You could tell he was stung by those who had been comparing the Iraq embassy attack to the previous one on another American embassy. It would be quite in Trump's nature to listen to those pushing strong action in such a context, though, to be fair, it is also clear the Iranians weren't done attacking Americans in Iraq. If it had something to do with 2020, then it isn't that different from other presidents. Obama tried to make out Al Qaeda and the like were defeated before the 2012 election - remember all the stuff about core Al Qaeda, not long before it became clear that was nonsense. Indeed, part of the misinformation on the Benghazi attack was part of that strategy.

As for the attack, it's hard to know how to judge it. I'm naturally inclined to think such interference a bad idea, but it must be said that it's nonsense to talk of American escalation, as many on the left have done. The Iranians have been consistently escalating and provoking the US for year. It's also true that the Obama strategy with Iran didn't work. Who knows what will come of this or it was a good thing. Soleimani certainly was a very bad actor.

Incidentally, if one wanted to see that Trump Derangement syndrome was a real thing, he should check out the comments of Jennifer Rubin and Max Booth. Neocons who partly turned on the Republicans because Trump seemed to be more anti-interventionist - not to mention long being Iran hawks, they have now suddenly decided more aggressive action against Iran is bad. Some of the left have had dubious responses as well. Pocahontas Warren, for example, had to issue a second tweet about this because her first one actually mentioned Soleimani was a bad man. That didn't go down too well on Woke Twitter.

Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #6 
Agreed that Soleimani certainly was a very bad actor.  However there are many very bad actors in the world at this time, and President Trump has been either cozy with, or openly admiring of, several of them.  So why engineer the killing of just one of them, thereby unleashing a fresh spike in hatred of America across the most volatile region of the world?
__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #7 
Well, for whatever reason, Trump has always singled out Iran for harsh treatment.

To be fair, Soleimani had been poking the bear, so to speak. For years the Iranians have been launching attacks on US and allied targets, and these increased last year. He had just masterminded an attack on the US embassy in Iraq, and clearly had more in store. Some in the media and his political opponents had already called it his Benghazi, an allusion he clearly didn't like. The US also had a historic grudge against Soleimani, as something like a third of US Tripp deaths in the Iraq War can be blamed on him via the Shi'a militias he supported and coordinated.

Certainly, this may cause more issues in the region - and will almost certainly cause a short term response from Iran. But, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the Iranians have been extending their influence in the region and have made plenty of enemies themselves. There is a reason there were Iraqis dancing in the street when they heard of Soleimani's death. Personally, I don't really know what will come out of this long term. It may well cause more problems, or it, along with a continued firm hand from the US, may cause Iran to pull back and restrain itself.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Well, for whatever reason, Trump has always singled out Iran for harsh treatment.

To be fair, Soleimani had been poking the bear, so to speak. For years the Iranians have been launching attacks on US and allied targets, and these increased last year. He had just masterminded an attack on the US embassy in Iraq, and clearly had more in store. Some in the media and his political opponents had already called it his Benghazi, an allusion he clearly didn't like. The US also had a historic grudge against Soleimani, as something like a third of US Tripp deaths in the Iraq War can be blamed on him via the Shi'a militias he supported and coordinated.

Certainly, this may cause more issues in the region - and will almost certainly cause a short term response from Iran. But, on the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the Iranians have been extending their influence in the region and have made plenty of enemies themselves. There is a reason there were Iraqis dancing in the street when they heard of Soleimani's death. Personally, I don't really know what will come out of this long term. It may well cause more problems, or it, along with a continued firm hand from the US, may cause Iran to pull back and restrain itself.

I want USA to invade Iran, because the Iranian regime being overthrown will change the Middle East for the better. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #9 
You know you can edit your posts? You don't need to delete them and repost, unless of course you are deliberately trying to sent out notifications.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You know you can edit your posts? You don't need to delete them and repost, unless of course you are deliberately trying to sent out notifications.

It's an entirely new post. I didn't outright endorse a US invasion of Iran in my deleted post.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #11 
Thst was my point. You can just edit your last post if you want to change.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Thst was my point. You can just edit your last post if you want to change.

Do you support a US invasion of Iran? I will support a US invasion of Iran, if it benefits Kurdistan. I support restoration of the Iranian monarchy, but it's of secondary importance to me compared to Kurdish independence from Iraq. Long live sacred egoism!
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Well, for whatever reason, Trump has always singled out Iran for harsh treatment.


My point exactly, except I believe "whatever reason” is something that needs to be teased-out in light of President Trump's remarkable deference to other equally bad actors.

He publicly rolls over and debases himself for Putin, MBS and Kim, even gushing like an idiotic school girl about the latter “We fell in love!” All the while, Kim continues to make an ass of him, while the others, along with the equally corrupt Netanyahu, have him squarely in their back pockets. As the late American hero Senator John McCain said the day Trump threw his own people under the bus while boot-licking Putin in Helsinki in front of the whole world, “One of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory."

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pallavicini


My point exactly, except I believe "whatever reason” is something that needs to be teased-out in light of President Trump's remarkable deference to other equally bad actors.

He publicly rolls over and debases himself for Putin, MBS and Kim, even gushing like an idiotic school girl about the latter “We fell in love!” All the while, Kim continues to make an ass of him, while the others, along with the equally corrupt Netanyahu, have him squarely in their back pockets. As the late American hero Senator John McCain said the day Trump threw his own people under the bus while boot-licking Putin in Helsinki in front of the whole world, “One of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory."

A monarchist comparing the House of Saud to the Islamic Republic of Iran makes no sense. Monarchists ought to support Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Israel were allies of USA, before Trump was elected President, while the Islamic Republic of Iran was an enemy of USA, before Trump was elected President. Netanyahu is indeed corrupt, but Israel is a democracy, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian regime.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #15 
I'm teased out here means. I don't think it's his deference to them that can be said to be responsible for his anti-Iran stance. The latter probably more to do with the softness of Obama on Iran. Trump wished to stand out.

I'm not sure who is being compared to Netanyahu here. I'm not sure Netanyahu is especially corrupt though. I read once Ben Shapiro's overview of the charges against them, and there was basically only one serious charge against him, if I recall correctly. The others were trivial at best. The kind of thing that would land half the US senate or, probably, the British parliament in the dock if applied to them. Even the actual corruption charge seemed to be overcharged somewhat, and, as importantly, denied by Netanyahu. Someone like Maxine Waters, for example, who is probably the most corrupt current member of Congress, seems more corrupt than Netanyahu. This is talking about events last year, but it gives you the picture:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/charges-against-benjamin-netanyahu-are-bogus-heres-emily-zanotti



Generally, a lot of crap is said about Netanyahu, like he is somehow holding up peace with the Palestinians. The truth is that the main opposition, Benny Gantz's party, would have exactly the same foreign policy. There's no one to negotiate with. Obviously, Hamas are a vile, genocidal terrorist regime, but the PLO are only marginally better. They honour terrorists who kill Israelis as martyrs and pay their families. They couldn't come to an agreement with Israel without fearing being lynched by those own people.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.