qassem soleimani assassinated

Try reading the whole post...
I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.

But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
 
but im noting how many times u try to war monger up this thread, and i hope others do too
Lol what not once in this thread did I 'warmonger', if anything I just called u out on your unfunniness. Get over yourself lol, "I hope others do too" bruh lmao this is a Pokemon website goofy ass

In fact in a deleted comment I explicitly stated that the conflict stems from America forcing out Palestinians for Israel, which if you think about it, the whole Middle Eastern conflict boils down to this.

That and oil.

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
I dont know where the hell you got all that from my single, neutral question, but okay. This is a textbook example of a strawman argument, only that its less of an argument than a violent, incoherent rant.

I never even said 'restored deterrence' lol wtf
Imagine living in a country that has no Walmart or Amazon... I truly cannot conceive surviving without them.
Target > Wal-Mart all day
 

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
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.
I don't mention iraq at all, if iraq wants us gone then out we go. I simply think its moronic to say OH NO trump is escalating the situation by sanctioning iran! Not a chance, when you look at a scale from deploy the troops to never mention country again applying sanctions is much closer to one side
 

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
I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.

But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
The US pressures its allies to fall in line with its sanctions. Between us and our allies we control a great deal of modern medicine. Sanctions on consumer goods and whatnot, sure that's not the same seriousness... but sanctions on food and medicine (and the US is horrifically famous for doing medicine to pile on pressure) has incredibly inhumane outcomes.

And yeah, we don't need walmart or amazon in our society-- my buddy was just making a point that for most people living in modern privilege, you can't understand what it is like being in real economic war, for your country to be sanctioned into a standard of living increasingly falling behind the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
To cynically illustrate how impactful sanctions are and how much of an economic grasp America has upon the world, consider the fact that the General's casket was carried out on a fucking Chevy
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I don't mention iraq at all, if iraq wants us gone then out we go. I simply think its moronic to say OH NO trump is escalating the situation by sanctioning iran! Not a chance, when you look at a scale from deploy the troops to never mention country again applying sanctions is much closer to one side
imo the problem with this line of thinking is that it plays right into the kubuki theatre of American foreign policy. Our military killed a state representative acting in diplomatic capacity, and the outfall of that is somehow being used to justify the supposedly lesser evil of sanctions. But why does the evil of assassination somehow pave the way for a further evil of sanctions? That is what I mean when I say such a 'de-escalation' discourse is kabuki theatrics. Unlike the Iranian missile strikes on U.S bases filled w deployed troops that were on high alert and suffered 0 casualties, these sanctions are going to have lasting effect and mainly on non-combatant civilians.

The hard truth here is, every step along the way of this 'escalation-de-escalation' spectacle, both the Iranian regime and the Trump administration have perhaps benefitted mightily from the supposed tension. Khomeini's #2 gets capped, helping to coup-proof the regime, meanwhile it's not clear what the long term effect of this will be for the Trump administration, but probably his base loves it and something to talk about besides impeachment in an election year. In any case stock market leaps for war, American and Iranian citizens get screwed. I could talk about how Russia and Iran move closer while continental Europe and America drift apart, but it is tangential geopolitics.

And so when we sanction a state, as obv we already have w Iran before these new sanctions, we are basically reaffirming the Washington Consensus logics on foreign interventions that is used to justify a state of perpetual war in that region. It's like how Bush Jr called Iran an 'axis of evil', it doesn't mean we are going to have a hot war with the states we sanction right away, but it is saying, at best, that we will treat them w the type of extreme prejudice that leads to these moments that resemble the beginnings of war. Sanctions imo, are a part of a sequence of political maneuvers that often form the prelude to wars, or at least violent confrontations.

To put it in perhaps more in terms of your post, the spectrum that needs to be questioned here is the neoconservative-neoliberal policy consensus/doctrine, the 'consensus' can be stated in terms of (a spectacle of) a disagreement about whether we should achieve American foreign policy objectives best through traditional warfare or by economic warfare. And in some terrible sense, it is correct to say that it is better to starve slowly than to be bombed, in the same awful sense that it is correct to say that war is good for the productivity of an economy. Imo, neither of these outcomes should be unscrutinized, as often the absence of the hot war is made into the justification for the cold one.

some last thoughts, wars are often started because actors on both sides miscalculate each others' intentions. Once at war, many innocent non-combatants become unintended casualties. In the case of these tit-for-tat displays, which included sanctions, the unintended casualty is the Iranian people, they'll be hurt but the regime won't be. It is like... in the fog of war, both sides, hoping to avoid each others' movements, are surprised to find themselves in a pitched battle, each side had hoped to avoid the other by taking some obscure route and in doing so came upon each other, and worse, they're on the outskirts of a civilian (insignificant to the objectives of the war) city and the fighting carries into the city. Obviously it is not actually like that story I told, but it isn't completely dissimilar. If one is willing to put their faith in present Western intelligence, however, it is much closer to the story I told: that plane that got shot down assumedly accidentally is the city that the fighting got carried into in our news cycle.
 
Last edited:

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
The hard truth here is, every step along the way of this 'escalation-de-escalation' spectacle, both the Iranian regime and the Trump administration have perhaps benefitted mightily from the supposed tension. Khomeini's #2 gets capped, helping to coup-proof the regime, meanwhile it's not clear what the long term effect of this will be for the Trump administration, but probably his base loves it and something to talk about besides impeachment in an election year. In any case stock market leaps for war, American and Iranian citizens get screwed. I could talk about how Russia and Iran move closer while continental Europe and America drift apart, but it is tangential geopolitics.
Yeah, this is so fucked up my buddy from Iran even told me he thinks that the Iranian Government (which he hates) and Trump (who he hates even more now) had to be in on this together because it's really the two governments that win-- the people who lose. Tin foil hat, I don't think agree-- but can't blame him considering the winners and losers.

Sanctions don't starve the Supreme leader or his backers, they hurt the Iranian people. Endless War is great for American elites, awful for American citizens.

Not only did the Iranian leader get to sucker the otherwise hostile citizenry into solidifying behind him with the death of popular Soleimani, but they also took the opportunity to put down a lot of elements protesting the government apparently.

I also see your argument for this being a good distraction for Trump, but my only hope is that this in fact blows up in Trump's face electorally. Considering that the population has genuine anti-war sentiments and really haven't been propogandized into this like before Iraq, there is the chance that this actually causes Trump's approval to drop-- where as playing it cool and letting the stupidly ineffectual impeachment thing would probably have securely landed him in a strong position. The Senate clears him, the GOP/his campaign have way way way more money, the economy is strong on face-value... Trump has major field advantages by doing nothing stupid.

This has the potential to rock that calculus. It also creates way more political and substantive engagement on the left that could benefit Sanders, Trump's biggest electoral challenge. It could even benefit Biden. I honestly think this is a major risk for Trump politically... but I am giving his base more credit to think for themselves than probably most Democrats/Lefties do. Regardless of whether the anti-war independents/conservatives stay behind him or not, this massively increases engagement of the left; and its Trump's race to lose the more he increases potential turn-out.
 
Last edited:
I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.

But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
Economic sanctions force Iran to be isolated and they don't have the necessary infrastructure to product at the same time medicines, weapons, bridges, computers, etc.

America prevents European Union to trade with Iran. If compagnies of European Union trade with Iran, they cannot sell in USA, which is impossible for big compagnies... And it's really annoying to be honest. Iran doesn't have bad relationships with European Union, they do nothing against us so I don't see why we should not trade with them because USA decides to fight them to make a profit with its army. We are forced to sell to China to trade with Iran to sell indirectly our stuff to the country.... But United States don't want either that we trade with China. Great.

United States are lucky that the European Union is too divided between its members to have a real power on the international scene, notably because Eastern Europe is really afraid of Russia so they like America for that, because otherwise this kind of alliance cannot last eternally. We have already a lot of problems with Turkey but we cannot do anything because it's an US friend... With this kind of allies, we don't need ennemies.
 
Last edited:
Looks like 2019 wasn't enough for humanity and the last thing we needed was a war between two nuclear countries. This only shows that there is a risk that US so-called "counter-terrorism" interventions are determined by what is militarily feasible rather than politically desirable. Though I do understand the situation, Soleimani was a threat for them as he was for those extremists who keep trying to overthrow Al Assad's legitimate government. Also, I've already lost count of how many times the United States has tried to bring its good "democracy" to countries in the Middle East to the point of making them a failed state.

I've read it, not sure what you're trying to point out. If a country's survival depends so much on trading with one specific country (which they are in bad terms with) then that country is fragile and needs to change ASAP, that situation is untenable.

But that assumes that countries absolutely cannot survive without trading with the USA, which seems rather ridiculous. Is there really anything they can't buy from another country? Well, I guess it's true they won't be able to buy iphones or tesla cybertrucks...
I haven't seen such an ignorant comment before, jesus. There's something called economic sanctions, which is something against international law according to the UN. I do know in first hand how it affects because we do have economic sanctions here in my country too, it just forces us to be isolated and not have the necessary infrastructure to produce what we need. And no, we don't want amazon, walmart, iphones or tesla trucks, we rather have medicine and food as this is more important for our people to survive. thanks.
 
Uh I never said it was going through sanctions on food and medicine, I was talking about my country. Though I'll leave this here in case you'd need more information to understand. https://www.dw.com/en/how-trumps-sanctions-are-crippling-irans-economy/a-49335908

Frustration over the sanctions is running high among Iranians, who have seen the value of Iran's currency, the rial, plummet by about 60% over the past year. Inflation is up to 37% and the cost of food and medicine has soared by 40% to 60%, according to EU figures.
 
I haven't seen such an ignorant comment before, jesus. There's something called economic sanctions, which is something against international law according to the UN. I do know in first hand how it affects because we do have economic sanctions here in my country too, it just forces us to be isolated and not have the necessary infrastructure to produce what we need.
Economic sanctions are not illegal, I have no clue where you got that idea but you’re wrong. As already mentioned, if your survival depends so much on good trade relations with one country, your situation is fragile and bound for eventual disaster. Yes it’s not going to be easy to solve but it should be taken as a wake up call.

And yeah people talking about medicine or whatever here... sanctions haven’t targeted those. Work a bit harder before typing.
 
Economic sanctions are not illegal, I have no clue where you got that idea but you’re wrong. As already mentioned, if your survival depends so much on good trade relations with one country, your situation is fragile and bound for eventual disaster. Yes it’s not going to be easy to solve but it should be taken as a wake up call.

And yeah people talking about medicine or whatever here... sanctions haven’t targeted those. Work a bit harder before typing.
Economic sanctions are not considered legal if they are imposed in a unilateral way with the only intetion to have a "regime change". Do I have to mention the blockade on Cuba, Yemen and Venezuela? because It has not only demonstrated to not work for a "regime change" but rather demonstrated to fall heavily on the poorest people in society, causing deaths through food and medicine shortages, so they could amount to crimes against humanity under international law. Of course, I understand that you wouldn't even know they affect medicine and food when you're not the one living in a country where economic sanctions are imposed by force and against the will of the citizens. I'll stop reading you but I'd suggest you to think a bit harder before making such a comment next time, it shows how ignorant you are jaja.
 
Economic sanctions are not considered legal if they are imposed in a unilateral way with the only intetion to have a "regime change". Do I have to mention the blockade on Cuba, Yemen and Venezuela? because It has not only demonstrated to not work for a "regime change" but rather demonstrated to fall heavily on the poorest people in society, causing deaths through food and medicine shortages, so they could amount to crimes against humanity under international law. Of course, I understand that you wouldn't even know they affect medicine and food when you're not the one living in a country where economic sanctions are imposed by force and against the will of the citizens. I'll stop reading you but I'd suggest you to think a bit harder before making such a comment next time, it shows how ignorant you are jaja.
They're not illegal period.

Whether they are bad is a different matter but it is why countries (and people) should strive to become as self-sufficient as possible. I understand your country is in a bad situation, good luck in real life man.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
A. We are not going to war because Iran isn’t suicidal.
B.I am glad this asshole is dead as he was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
C. The manner in which he was assassinated was almost certainly a war crime.
D. No one should listen to anything further said by those who unironically want America to die. It’s nothing personal but I’d rather prefer America live and prosper, so let’s just agree that everything you propose is with the death of America in mind and assume that since our goals don’t align our solutions won’t either.
E. The cultural sites targeting thing was extremely disturbing and I’m surprised there haven’t been a dozen ads cut with that line in them already. Dems are idiots not to use that because it’s such a third world dictator thug move.
F. I’m actually going to be somewhat pleased with the results of this if it forces the US to finally remove troops from Iraq, forced or otherwise. We have no reason to be there militarily - it’s just a massive waste of money.

In no particular order.
 
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...
The only thing I could describe as colossally idiotic is Obama and Secretary Kerry paying the Iranians billions as more or less of a bribe, only for them to expand their terror arsenal. Republicans want the use of deterrents put back in place (because paying off terrorists is an awful idea as history shows us), as in if Iran crosses a red line, they get punished in so that theyre less likely to do it again. They attacked and set fire to our embassy, I would think thats a valid excuse. No one wants war, and deterrents does not mean war, you can stop strawmanning the right's argument. Not to mention, Soleimani's terror plans were released in a classified setting to members of Congress and the Senate alike, on top of the fact that this attack has been planned for months now, it happened now because of what they did to the embassy.
 

termi

formerly Robert Alfons
is a Tiering Contributor
F. I’m actually going to be somewhat pleased with the results of this if it forces the US to finally remove troops from Iraq, forced or otherwise. We have no reason to be there militarily - it’s just a massive waste of money.
too bad the US said fuck a sovereign nation. the only positive about this really is that the US government made more explicit than ever before that their little mission in iraq is entirely imperialist in nature and in no way concerned with the well-being of the iraqi people. too bad most of the dems are just gonna ignore this because theyre just as complicit as the republicans in perpetuating the neo-imperialist style of US foreign policy
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The only thing I could describe as colossally idiotic is Obama and Secretary Kerry paying the Iranians billions as more or less of a bribe, only for them to expand their terror arsenal. Republicans want the use of deterrents put back in place (because paying off terrorists is an awful idea as history shows us), as in if Iran crosses a red line, they get punished in so that theyre less likely to do it again. They attacked and set fire to our embassy, I would think thats a valid excuse. No one wants war, and deterrents does not mean war, you can stop strawmanning the right's argument. Not to mention, Soleimani's terror plans were released in a classified setting to members of Congress and the Senate alike, on top of the fact that this attack has been planned for months now, it happened now because of what they did to the embassy.
Basically every part of this reply is an ahistorical revision of events peddled by chicken hawks as war propaganda. It would almost be interesting to see how effective it was if it didn’t have negative real life impacts both in the region and globally.
 
Basically every part of this reply is an ahistorical revision of events peddled by chicken hawks as war propaganda. It would almost be interesting to see how effective it was if it didn’t have negative real life impacts both in the region and globally.
Im shitting myself. I literally just said no one wants war (which includes myself), and the right is pushing for deterrents. Maybe you need to learn to read first before you bash my post as war propaganda. The Iranian government should not have attacked our embassy, and it shouldnt be torturing or killing its own citizens (take the airline crash that Iran just admitted to accidentally shooting down that Dems and the media have been pinning on Trump, stupidest illogical shit I have ever heard). Additionally, you want to talk about revisionist history? Try talking about the people protesting as we speak against the Iranian regime and the 1500 of them killed last year alone because their government is batshit crazy and guilty of countless human rights abuses. Cover that, then come back to me. Dumbass.
 
Last edited:
No one wants war. Period. Assassinating a top threat terrorist in response to an attack on our embassy and was about to attack us again is not the start of World War III. Deterrents are used commonly as a means to enforce "red lines," something that Obama was horrific at. You just expect the US to sit there and take attacks at the behest of bewildered journalists and elected officials who're claiming Iran is the victim? Im not sure how much clearer I can be.. Pretty ridiculous that you're insisting on deriving assumptions out of statements I never made.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
why is everyone so virtiolic

like i mean i get it this is as political as it gets but u guys could at least provide sources for the claims ur making instead of hurling insults at one another
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Im shitting myself. I literally just said no one wants war (which includes myself), and the right is pushing for deterrents. Maybe you need to learn to read first before you bash my post as war propaganda. The Iranian government should not have attacked our embassy, and it shouldnt be torturing or killing its own citizens (take the airline crash that Iran just admitted to accidentally shooting down that Dems and the media have been pinning on Trump, stupidest illogical shit I have ever heard). Additionally, you want to talk about revisionist history? Try talking about the people protesting as we speak against the Iranian regime and the 1500 of them killed last year alone because their government is batshit crazy and guilty of countless human rights abuses. Cover that, then come back to me. Dumbass.
Lol, I’m talking about referring to the Iranian nuclear deal as, “bribing the Iranians for billions of dollars,” which is literal chicken hawk propaganda and ignores historical context like the fact it was Iran’s money in the first place. Also you immediately follow that by saying that paying terrorists is a bad idea, implying Iran’s government is a terrorist which again, chicken hawk propaganda, and again ignores the historical context by which the current Iranian regime came into power (literally the United States overthrowing their democratically elected government, then that government getting overthrown by this one because it was corrupt and exploited its own people). Don’t get me wrong, the current Iranian government is awful and garbage, but we historically have made governments worse with our interference (do you ever wonder why there are so many asylum seekers from Central America?). But it isn’t even the top supplier of terror in the area, s/o Saudi Arabia, good thing we’re giving them nuclear secrets after they killed a US resident in Turkey.

You also stated that it was necessary to kill him now because there was an imminent threat to (4 of (this is the number I’ve heard)) our other embassies in the region. Yet no warning was given to those embassies. You know what it was called the last time an embassy supposedly wasn’t given enough warning before an imminent threat? I’ll give you a hint, it’s a city in Libya. Give up? Benghazi. And yet no embassies have been attacked, no warnings have been given, no embassies evacuated, which if there were plans in place you’d think they’d still happen. Which is also interesting because Donald Trump has both claimed that he was an imminent threat (so as to not commit a war crime) but also had these plans for months so? Even framing this as “the government of Iran attacked our embassy” is a half truth. An Iraqi Shia militia group that is politically aligned with Iran, along with other Iraqi protestors attacked the US embassy in Iraq. Ignoring the context completely and framing it as the government of Iran attacked our embassy is part of the game.

If a war does happen (or even just asymmetric war), you’ve already been biased to believe it’s justified and you don’t even realize it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top