qassem soleimani assassinated

I read about this and found (correct me if I'm wrong somewhere):

Qaseem Soleimani was killed after an airstrike by the US took out his car convoy on it's way to the Baghdad airport.
This^ came days after Iraqi forces stormed the US embassy compound and burnt some of its outlying buildings on New Year's Day.

His death will surely be a setback for IranIan's and the Iraqui Allies. Given the history of the region, one can be sure that there will be some military response. But given the US power, Iran will certainly think hard before it acts.

Who is he?
-> "To Middle Eastern Shiites, he is James Bond, Erwin Rommel and Lady Gaga rolled into one," wrote former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack in a profile for Time's 100 most influential people in 2017, according to AFP.

-> "To the West, he is... responsible for exporting Iran's Islamic revolution, supporting terrorists, subverting pro-Western governments and waging Iran's foreign wars," Pollack added. Western leaders saw him as central to Iran’s ties with militia groups including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas.

----How this war affects India----

An outbreak of war could see the blockage of oil supply through Hormuz.
Two-Third of the 80% of oil India imports, as well as half of India's LNG come through the Straits of Hormuz.

Moreover, a war or something akin to it could have devastating consequences for the Indian diaspora spread across the Saudi peninsula. India may find itself having to carry out emergency evacuation of its nationals, who number in the millions from the region.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/how-to-avoid-swallowing-war-propaganda?fbclid=IwAR0umMI1m3ukztJCEWljJEXIgEA7hus9kP_2-jGNJyK5ho1R2ghU7WZ4p_I

"Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet I’m implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan, for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.

There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement “Nathan Robinson thinks it’s good to help terrorists who murder civilians.” There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that “thinking it’s good to help terrorists,” and during periods of War Fever, that’s exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry that becomes ubiquitous."

helpful piece so u can see who is bsing itt lol, have a lovely day
 

vonFiedler

Ridley is in Smash
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Let's not forget that the democrats were very much complicit in the first Iraq War initially. That's why you're seeing all these "fool me once" articles floating around. These political lies are so beyond obvious at this point.

Now if only the Republicans who said they wanted Trump in office to avoid war would kindly stop being colossal fucking idiots for 5 seconds out of this 4 year span...
 
It's very odd that Trump decided to escalate the situation in Iran. His voter base voted him in to NOT INTERVENE in Middle East. The outcome of this situation is dependent on Iran's reaction now. Trump's politics is only favorable if Iran decides to not do anything and swallow their pride. However, Iran has withdrawn from the nuclear agreement, so that's looking more and more grim now. It was a foolish play to give your cards to someone else to play.
 
There's a huge difference between responding by jacking up Iranian body count and symbolic economic sanctions which Iran can bypass easily anyways.
 
"symbolic economic sanctions "
I havent seen the specific sanctions that Trump is going to impose after his speech today but sanctions can be deadly and result in high amounts of deaths. and plus sanctions are a huge part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place. sanctions are not a good idea rn

???

What did you expect??
oh I was just saying cuz I thought the poster above me implied there was no escalation
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Ok I hate trump as much as anybody but like, what was the us supposed to do, just say "oopsie our bad, we'll leave the middle east alone forever"? US military bases were attacked; like it or not that warrants a response from a country. No country on earth has ever said "well ok you attacked us but we'll just slink away now". Sanctions are absolutely a deescalation. It's the only way that america could feasibly back down from the mess we are in. There's really no way to spin sanctions as the wrong choice by trump here
 
Yes, a hundred times yes.
I agree that noninterventionism is the best option. Trump killing Soleimani was a mistake, and I believe that the sanctions is one of the better outcomes that could happen from this.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
There's a huge difference between responding by jacking up Iranian body count and symbolic economic sanctions which Iran can bypass easily anyways.
Not from what I've read online or even heard from friends in Iran. My understanding is that life under US sanctions is pretty miserable. My buddy said, "Can you imagine no Amazon in your country? No Walmart, none of the major consumer brands you rely on? Can you imagine doctors using Oil as a disinfectant because they can't get medicine? Or the austerity and deaths that result from foot shortages, or modern medicine?" And that was BEFORE all this shit.

Sanctions are an act of war. When we look at poverty in countries that have stood up to the US' bullying-- in Iran's case, the government has in fact been pretty damn brutal to its people and is hated by the citizenry (well, was-- we shall see after this!), but sanctions also play a massive role.
 
Sanctions kill. They're not de-escalation. Again, I don't know the specifics of the sanctions (if the details are out yet someone plz link me). Sanctions being less harmful than military action is sometimes not even true. Look up how many people starved or couldn't get the medical attention they needed under sanctions in Iraq for example. Hell, I'm Cuban American and my family has told me just how harrowing life was under the embargo.

Pull out of the nuclear deal + harsh sanctions on Iran starts tension --> Iran does things not allowed in the deal because it doesn't bind them anymore --> US gets mad and provokes them with a string of actions and reactions --> hey, why don't we impose more sanctions? Its not like thats what caused the tension in the first place!

I fail to see how this is a good idea.

I think this warrants a bigger question: does the implication that ''America started it" justify the actions Iran have taken?
Iran has been totally proportionate in their response to the shit the US has pulled in the region. Even with the last strike they let clearance of the area happen (therefore no casualties) before the attack and it was probably the least aggressive options they had on the table.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I think this warrants a bigger question: does the implication that ''America started it" justify the actions Iran have taken?
i think we should actually be focusing on US actions, seeing as we are US citizens. but im noting how many times u try to war monger up this thread, and hope everyone else is noting it too. also self defense is always more justified than aggression, and if you consider Iran the aggressor here, you're ignoring 50 years of history, but why would you start being interested in history now anyway?

idk why anyone thinks sanctions are a step down, theyre just another tat for a tit, they starve iranian ppl and do nothing to threaten the regime. And since we all know war is driven by economics, this is just myopathy masquerading as stance to take itt. at that point why not argue that the US has actually 'restored deterrence' by killing Suleimai? lol
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Ok I hate trump as much as anybody but like, what was the us supposed to do, just say "oopsie our bad, we'll leave the middle east alone forever"? US military bases were attacked; like it or not that warrants a response from a country. No country on earth has ever said "well ok you attacked us but we'll just slink away now". Sanctions are absolutely a deescalation. It's the only way that america could feasibly back down from the mess we are in. There's really no way to spin sanctions as the wrong choice by trump here
whats a m.e country supposed to do? say: "oh yeah mr. us, id be happy to be part of your empire and give u all my natural resources, i dont need sovereignty as long as I have U.S bases inside my territory', like it or not the US is violating the sovereignty of Iraq by not withdrawing and playing like theyre on some higher level than other states, such that the us doesn't have to be accountable to international law or norms.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top