It seems US wants war

[OCguy]

Sir since you the weaponry and delivery system now, let's settle Afghanistan first. That war has been shattering for your economy and military credit. USA should not handover a country to the extremist who it came to eliminate 18 years ago. No?

Speaking of innocents getting killed, one million has lost their lives in Afghanistan, some 70,000 in Pakistan. Please don't tell people of this region who is sick of seeing people die in the hands of invaders.

We are settling Afghanistan by getting out. Two different conflicts, two different wars.

 

[Oldman1]

Iran could just have its Proxies/Allies engage US assets in Iraq Ad hominem since that would be the smart way to go about it but Iran does have different options at its disposal.

Maybe attacking another U.S. embassy will change Trump's mind. You never know.

 

[M.Bison]

There absolutely are those scenarios, and I have studied them. You probably aren't aware that KSA has an agreement to allow Israeli jets to use their bases for refueling, unlike 10 years ago when war was imminent.



If America attacks them, there will be no leadership, funds, or ability to re-start the program for decades.



By who? There will be no hardline clerics. America attack = New government, and no nuke program.

What are you talking about? American attack will lead to even more hardlines coming into power. Leading to the hastening of the nuclear program. Rouhani was a moderate..

 

[libertad]

Is Iran ready for another war since the conflict in Syria? Would the Iranian people support it? Or would Iran just use proxies to keep attacking U.S. in Iraq as well as mining in Hormuz? You really believe Iran has no more cards to play except go to war?

The retaliation for this attack will come from their proxies and we have put many nice targets for them right there in Iraq. If we attack Iran directly the its full blown war. There's a reason we waited until Soleimani was outside Iran to hit him. If he was in Iran it would have been a full blown declaration of war. Since he was hit in Iraq we are a step or 2 short of that. If we didn't have troops in the area we could get away with it like Israel does. But we stupidly keep troops around as revenge fodder. If we hit Iran directly then the whole middle east, including israel is on fire and the global economy is in the toilet. I doubt Trump is willing to go that far.

 

[Blue In Green]

Maybe attacking another U.S. embassy will change Trump's mind. You never know.

If a shooting war happens then the American fortress Embassy (don't know what else to categorize it as) in Iraq could be a legitimate target for all we know.

What we do know is that the Iranian response will be severe and it will be a calculated response that will kill Americans in high ranking positions somewhere in the Middle-East. More over, Iran most likely wont respond soon and will sit on this for quite some time, possibly as to think about their options thoroughly.

Iran is a rational state actor when it comes to how it responds to provocations.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist movement announces reactivation of anti-US 'Mahdi Army' to defend Iraq

 

[Oldman1]

First, I am not attacking the United states. Second, My point is that if you bomb Iran then they will retaliate. If you will not invade Iran with troops then what is the point? Can't send al-qaeda there like in syria. So, again it will be waste and your checks will keep coming in the mail but the people that work for a living will have to foot the bill.

No, we will bomb Iran in retaliation if they want to keep going. Do you know why they bombed the Iranian backed militia in Iraq? Because they kept attacking U.S. forces.

This happened in middle of December when the U.S. asked Iraq to help stop the attacks, assuming the Iraqi govt. had control over the Iranian backed militias.
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...top-attacks-on-bases-housing-american-troops/

Esper asks Iraq to help stop attacks on bases housing American troops

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper asked Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi in a phone call Monday to help stop rocket attacks that have been targeting bases housing American troops, according to a statement from the Iraqi prime minister’s office.

The call from Esper follows at least 10 rocket attacks that have targeted U.S. bases and interests in Iraq over the last five weeks. Iran-backed militias are believed to be behind a number of the attacks.

A U.S. official told Military Times that Iran-backed militias are now using more lethal and longer range 122mm rockets in their attacks.

Esper “expressed his concern over targeting of some places, and the necessity to the need to take measures to stop that,” according to a readout of the call provided by Abdul Mahdi’s office.

The Pentagon has yet to release a readout of the call with the Iraqi prime minister’s office.

Abdul Mahdi expressed “concern” over the rocket attacks but also warned that “unilateral decisions will have negative reactions that are difficult to control” and could threaten the sovereignty of Iraq.

On Friday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Iran and its leaders of a “decisive U.S. response” if the regime or its militias harm American troops or allies in the region.

We must also use this opportunity to remind Iran’s leaders that any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response,” Pompeo said in a statement on Friday.

Operation Inherent Resolve — the U.S.-led mission to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria — reiterated it’s forces’ right to self defense following the rocket attacks.

“We take the recent rocket attacks in Iraq seriously as do our Iraqi Security Forces partners, who are investigating these events,” OIR said in an emailed statement to Military Times.

“We have made clear that attacks on U.S. and Coalition personnel and facilities will not be tolerated and we retain the right to defend ourselves,” OIR said.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday expressed concern regarding the U.S. military’s ability to effectively deter Iran’s malign behavior.

“Iran should not mistake the United States’ restraint for an unwillingness to respond with decisive military force should our forces or interests be attacked," Esper told lawmakers Wednesday on Capitol Hill.

Reuters first reported the call between Esper and Abdul Mahdi.

If a shooting war happens then the American fortress Embassy (don't know what else to categorize it as) in Iraq could be a legitimate target for all we know.

What we do know is that Iran will response severely and it will be a calculated response that will kill Americans in high ranking positions somewhere in the Middle-East. More over Iran most likely wont respond soon and will sit on this for quite some time possible as to think about their options thoroughly.

Attacking the U.S. embassy was already an legitimate target in the eyes of the Iranians. Hence why Trump responded. And if they want to kill Americans in high ranking positions, then I'm sure the Iranians know how to deal with Trump who is acting on his impulses.

 

[mangekyo]

If a shooting war happens then the American fortress Embassy (don't know what else to categorize it as) in Iraq could be a legitimate target for all we know.

What we do know is that Iran will response severely and it will be a calculated response that will kill Americans in high ranking positions somewhere in the Middle-East. More over Iran most likely wont respond soon and will sit on this for quite some time possible as to think about their options thoroughly.

I doubt they didn't already plan for this. If they hadn't before, they should have from the moment when US designated IRGC as a terrorist organization. It's only logical that US would eventually assassinate the head of the organization they declared as terrorists.

 

[Oldman1]

The retaliation for this attack will come from their proxies and we have put many nice targets for them right there in Iraq. If we attack Iran directly the its full blown war. There's a reason we waited until Soleimani was outside Iran to hit him. If he was in Iran it would have been a full blown declaration of war. Since he was hit in Iraq we are a step or 2 short of that. If we didn't have troops in the area we could get away with it like Israel does. But we stupidly keep troops around as revenge fodder. If we hit Iran directly then the whole middle east, including israel is on fire and the global economy is in the toilet. I doubt Trump is willing to go that far.

Who knows, maybe Iran will target Israel instead since its considered part of the U.S. Just like Iraq did. Probably think we won't retaliate.

 

[graphican]

Iraq doesn't belong to us no different than Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. We never owned them. Iran's mentality is equivalent to Osama Bin Laden who doesn't want U.S. troops in the ME which by the way happened because of Gulf War 1. Thats not their decision to make. It was the countries. Iraq kicked the U.S. out over the immunity of U.S. soldiers in 2008. Then invited them back in during the ISIS conflict. And is that the same Iranian mentality over Israel as well on who needs to leave the region?

If it is a matter of invitaion the know that the government of Paksitan doesn't want USA in Afghanistan neither do people of Afghanistan or Iran or Russia or China. USA's existence without an invitation should be over from there. Don't you think?

Likewise, American existence in the Middle East is not because countries invited you there but you came there as you came to Iraq finding "weapons of mass destructions", in Kuwait because Iraq declared it a province, but not in Kashmir who India just annexed despite being an international dispute. Here your logical chain dies.

You see you should use this expression "because we said so" instead of creating a logical narrative behind your actions. Logic won't take you much far.

We are settling Afghanistan by getting out. Two different conflicts, two different wars.

Sir your words are worthy to be framed and put in American Military Barracks.
"We left Afghanistan because we wanted to settle it."

 

[Blue In Green]

I doubt they didn't already plan for this. If they hadn't before, they should have from the moment when US designated IRGC as a terrorist organization. It's only logical that US would eventually assassinate the head of the organization they declared as terrorists.

I'm not all that taken aback by the U.S. decision to kill Haj Qassem Soleimani but this action did not help whatsoever to cool tensions between Iran and the United States, of that we can all be more than certain. It is one of many stones on the path to a full region wide shooting-war that nobody wants.

Honestly, Iran should probably just forgo striking America back and just remove itself from the JCPOA and NPT with a renewed focus on actually obtaining a nuclear weapons capability to truly even out the playing field.

 

[dani92]

They shouldn't have attacked the US embassy.

 

[Oldman1]

If it is a matter of invitaion the know that the government of Paksitan doesn't want USA in Afghanistan neither do people of Afghanistan or Iran or Russia or China. USA's existence without an invitation should be over from there. Don't you think?

Likewise, American existence in the Middle East is not because countries invited you there but you came there as you came to Iraq finding "weapons of mass destructions", in Kuwait because Iraq declared it a province, but not in Kashmir who India just annexed despite being an international dispute. Here your logical chain dies.

You see you should use this expression "because we said so" instead of creating a logical narrative behind your actions. Logic won't take you much far.

You seem to missed the part about Gulf War 1 when the U.S. was by treaty invited in Saudi Arabia and other countries to help settle U.S. forces in the ME to deal with Saddam. Sure Osama Bin Laden and Iran wouldn't like that. Same for lets say Israel doesn't like Iran in Syria, vice versa.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

They shouldn't have attacked the US embassy.

Don't be a such a cuck, man up Iraqi nationalist.

raqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi condemned on Friday the "assassination" of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad.

The airstrike on Baghdad airport is an act of aggression on Iraq and breach of its sovereignty that will lead to war in Iraq, the region, and the world, he said in a statement.

Abdul-Mahdi called the airstrike a "massive breach of sovereignty," saying "the two martyrs were huge symbols of the victory" against the Daesh terror group.

raqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi condemned on Friday the "assassination" of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad.

The airstrike on Baghdad airport is an act of aggression on Iraq and breach of its sovereignty that will lead to war in Iraq, the region, and the world, he said in a statement.

Abdul-Mahdi called the airstrike a "massive breach of sovereignty," saying "the two martyrs were huge symbols of the victory" against the Daesh terror group.

 

[OCguy]

Sir your words are worthy to be framed and put in American Military Barracks.
"We left Afghanistan because we wanted to settle it."

I wish they would make new recruits understand why that idea is so poignant. So I like your idea.

The US is the best in the world at making war. But we are completely inept at remembering the mistakes of the past, and anticipating the consequences of creating power vacuums or a current ally shifting alliances.

Don't be a such a cuck, man up Iraqi nationalist.

raqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi condemned on Friday the "assassination" of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad.

The airstrike on Baghdad airport is an act of aggression on Iraq and breach of its sovereignty that will lead to war in Iraq, the region, and the world, he said in a statement.

Abdul-Mahdi called the airstrike a "massive breach of sovereignty," saying "the two martyrs were huge symbols of the victory" against the Daesh terror group.

raqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi condemned on Friday the "assassination" of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad.

The airstrike on Baghdad airport is an act of aggression on Iraq and breach of its sovereignty that will lead to war in Iraq, the region, and the world, he said in a statement.

Abdul-Mahdi called the airstrike a "massive breach of sovereignty," saying "the two martyrs were huge symbols of the victory" against the Daesh terror group.

You're either uninformed or not paying attention if you think that Iraq wasn't involved in the strikes and arrests.