World War Three?

[rogue06]

Since I followed the war in Iraq Soleimani and his Quds Force were no mystery.

Soleimani’s legacy: The gruesome, advanced IEDs that haunted U.S. troops in Iraq


https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...s-troops-iraq/

His connection with IEDs is the reason that I'm familiar with him. I have an unusual knack for such devices and continue to follow developments in the field fairly closely.

[seer]

His connection with IEDs is the reason that I'm familiar with him. I have an unusual knack for such devices and continue to follow developments in the field fairly closely.

I heard about the EFPs from Marines who were in country. They all knew they were coming from Iran. Star's ignorance notwithstanding...

[rogue06]

I heard about the EFPs from Marines who were in country. They all knew they were coming from Iran. Star's ignorance notwithstanding...

We were making those out of wine bottles back in the 80s. We used other things as well but that provides too much info on how to make them which is something I won't do.

[lilpixieofterror]

He was leading the fight against ISIS. He was at the least the enemy of many of the US's enemies in region.

Here's a chart from when the war was in full swing in that region. Arrows indicate who is fighting who:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41817[/ATTACH]

From close inspection you can see there are no arrows from US forces to anything Soleimani was associated with. The US was not fighting his troops. He was not killing US troops. They were both fighting ISIS. Alliances in that region are complex at the best of times, and often do boil down to having a shared enemy, so in that sense it wouldn't necessarily be wrong to call him a US ally.

He had command of the forces outside Iran. That was one reason he was so well liked within Iran, because he wasn't part of the regime's internal crackdown on its own people.


Trump for starters.

While leading attacks against American’s abroad. The DoD, back under the Obama administration, estimated he was responsible for the deaths of 500 Americans. His troops have also been cracking down on protestors and outright murdering them in the streets. Just because he was fighting against ISIS, doesn’t make him a good guy. The US is in more places, than Syria, so good dishonesty from you, yet again. Let’s include Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen in that picture.

[seanD]

While leading attacks against American’s abroad. The DoD, back under the Obama administration, estimated he was responsible for the deaths of 500 Americans. His troops have also been cracking down on protestors and outright murdering them in the streets.

With what we know about recent military disinfo, how can you be certain that info is accurate?

[NorrinRadd]

"Full Gospel Christian" in your tagline.

[Starlight]

The DoD, back under the Obama administration, estimated he was responsible for the deaths of 500 Americans.

Not exactly. The US estimated that Iranian linked forces had planted landmines that had overall killed about 500 US troops mostly during the 'surge' in Iraq. The trouble with landmines in general is they kill whoever steps/drives on them, not necessarily who you intended. As US forces pushed into new areas they hadn't been in previously / hadn't been expected to be in by the previous factions fighting there, they encountered these devices set up already to target others. Nor is Suleimani directly responsible for actions taken by forces only vaguely linked to him. They were forces "associated" with him, but not ones he was in direct and active command of.

So you could argue that if Iran hadn't been involved in the conflict in Iran, that those US troops may not have died. But what's definitely true is that if the US hadn't been in that conflict in Iraq, those US troops wouldn't have died.

Suleimani himself, did not personally direct the deaths of 500 American soldiers. That's crazy talk.

[lilpixieofterror]

With what we know about recent military disinfo, how can you be certain that info is accurate?

The Obama administration wanted the Iranian deal to go through. Pointing out one of their top leaders is responsible for terrorist attacks is kind of a black mark against the Iranian deal.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not exactly. The US estimated that Iranian linked forces had planted landmines that had overall killed about 500 US troops mostly during the 'surge' in Iraq. The trouble with landmines in general is they kill whoever steps/drives on them, not necessarily who you intended. As US forces pushed into new areas they hadn't been in previously / hadn't been expected to be in by the previous factions fighting there, they encountered these devices set up already to target others. Nor is Suleimani directly responsible for actions taken by forces only vaguely linked to him. They were forces "associated" with him, but not ones he was in direct and active command of.

So you could argue that if Iran hadn't been involved in the conflict in Iran, that those US troops may not have died. But what's definitely true is that if the US hadn't been in that conflict in Iraq, those US troops wouldn't have died.

Suleimani himself, did not personally direct the deaths of 500 American soldiers. That's crazy talk.

Sweety, you did read about the IED’s his group planted, did you?

[rogue06]

Not exactly. The US estimated that Iranian linked forces had planted landmines that had overall killed about 500 US troops mostly during the 'surge' in Iraq. The trouble with landmines in general is they kill whoever steps/drives on them, not necessarily who you intended. As US forces pushed into new areas they hadn't been in previously / hadn't been expected to be in by the previous factions fighting there, they encountered these devices set up already to target others. Nor is Suleimani directly responsible for actions taken by forces only vaguely linked to him. They were forces "associated" with him, but not ones he was in direct and active command of.

So you could argue that if Iran hadn't been involved in the conflict in Iran, that those US troops may not have died. But what's definitely true is that if the US hadn't been in that conflict in Iraq, those US troops wouldn't have died.

Suleimani himself, did not personally direct the deaths of 500 American soldiers. That's crazy talk.

They aren't land mines in the conventional sense. They are expressly designed to take out armored vehicles -- something that civilians aren't exactly driving around in. The devices were explicitly designed to take out American military vehicles.

[seer]

Not exactly. The US estimated that Iranian linked forces had planted landmines that had overall killed about 500 US troops mostly during the 'surge' in Iraq. The trouble with landmines in general is they kill whoever steps/drives on them, not necessarily who you intended. As US forces pushed into new areas they hadn't been in previously / hadn't been expected to be in by the previous factions fighting there, they encountered these devices set up already to target others. Nor is Suleimani directly responsible for actions taken by forces only vaguely linked to him. They were forces "associated" with him, but not ones he was in direct and active command of.

So you could argue that if Iran hadn't been involved in the conflict in Iran, that those US troops may not have died. But what's definitely true is that if the US hadn't been in that conflict in Iraq, those US troops wouldn't have died.

Suleimani himself, did not personally direct the deaths of 500 American soldiers. That's crazy talk.

So the Washington Post is lying?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...s-troops-iraq/

[Watermelon]

Isolate them.



And so is the Chinese government ever present, stealing technology from the west, spreading propaganda about itself, hiding its human rights abuses, spying on western governments, getting companies and individuals to turn a blind eye to their oppressive government for piles of cash, etc. China has been allowed to spread its influence around the world. Don’t believe me? How did the NBA react when one of their owners threw support behind the Hong Kong protesters?



We’ve had diplomatic relations, with China, since 1972. Have they become less repressive yet? China has gone through two generations now, will the third, fourth, or fifth one finally do it? It’s been nearly 50 years now, has China become less repressive?



And what has that accomplished? Is China no longer wiping out cultures within its nation? Is China no longer stealing trade secrets, from the US? Is China no longer pushing around its neighbors? Is China no longer sending millions of their own citizens to slave away, in factories? Is the Chinese government not censoring the movies the people can see, the web sites they can visit, or the music they can listen to?

Sounds like China is still ran by an oppressive, authoritarian, government that now is flush with cash. Just remember, North Korea exist because China allows it to.



They don’t and neither do the Chinese.

The best option is to isolate a country that has 20% of the world population and enough nukes to destroy the world? Is it wise to isolate another world power that other adversarial nations could group under? How do you think China would’ve handled Hong Kong in that situation?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to criticise the Chinese for those practices when the United States behaves in a similar manner? Do you think anti American sentiment exists in some parts of the world because they hate all the goodness that the US tries to give them? Don’t get me wrong, the US is undoubtedly a positive influence in the world overall but no one thinks they always act purely out of good intentions.

Is China any less repressive? Umm have you heard about the ‘great leap forward’? And that’s my point, Xi Zinping and the current Chinese leadership are the generation that grew up under Mao.

The Iranian youth were born after the revolution and the war with Iran. Their opposition to the ideologies of the previous generations are well documented, they can see how much better life can be and they want that for themselves and their children. A war with Iran is going to create another generation that doesn’t trust the west.

[lilpixieofterror]

The best option is to isolate a country that has 20% of the world population and enough nukes to destroy the world? Is it wise to isolate another world power that other adversarial nations could group under? How do you think China wouldÂ’ve handled Hong Kong in that situation?

What is easier to deal with:

1. An enemy, flush with cash and resources.
2. An enemy, low on resources and desperate.

China has been an experiment in the idea of, “If we expose them to western ideals, they’ll liberalize” for closing on 50 years now. Have they liberalized yet? Are they any closer to adopting a western style democracy? Are they any less of a brutal, authoritarian regime now than they were before? Hong Kong became a prosperous society, under British rule and was turned over to Chinese rule in 1997. Would the UK have done the same, if China was weakened or could Hong Kong had been in a better position to resist?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to criticise the Chinese for those practices when the United States behaves in a similar manner? Do you think anti American sentiment exists in some parts of the world because they hate all the goodness that the US tries to give them? Don’t get me wrong, the US is undoubtedly a positive influence in the world overall but no one thinks they always act purely out of good intentions.

The US had been far kinder to its neighbors than China has. We last invaded Mexico in 1919 and that was to capture a man that had been raiding US towns, not to occupy the country. Our last invasion of Canada was during the war of 1812, so over two centuries. On the other hand, China annexed Tibet in 1959 (last country the US annexed was Hawaii in 1898), invaded Vietnam last in 1979, India in 1962 (with brief skirmishes taking place last in 1987), and they have had skirmishes against most of their neighbors. Being US neighbors seems to be a little safer vs a neighbor with China.

Is China any less repressive? Umm have you heard about the ‘great leap forward’?And thatÂ’s my point, Xi Zinping and the current Chinese leadership are the generation that grew up under Mao.

And guess what? This generation is growing up under Xi Zinping. Do we have to wait another 30-40 years for his generation to die until we finally see results? 80-90 years seems a lot of time to wait to see if the strategy will even work out.

The Iranian youth were born after the revolution and the war with Iran. Their opposition to the ideologies of the previous generations are well documented, they can see how much better life can be and they want that for themselves and their children. A war with Iran is going to create another generation that doesn’t trust the west.

Who says you need to go to war? Isolating them and frustrating their efforts, is a way to do it without open warfare.

[Watermelon]

What is easier to deal with:

1. An enemy, flush with cash and resources.
2. An enemy, low on resources and desperate.

China has been an experiment in the idea of, “If we expose them to western ideals, they’ll liberalize” for closing on 50 years now. Have they liberalized yet? Are they any closer to adopting a western style democracy? Are they any less of a brutal, authoritarian regime now than they were before? Hong Kong became a prosperous society, under British rule and was turned over to Chinese rule in 1997. Would the UK have done the same, if China was weakened or could Hong Kong had been in a better position to resist?



The US had been far kinder to its neighbors than China has. We last invaded Mexico in 1919 and that was to capture a man that had been raiding US towns, not to occupy the country. Our last invasion of Canada was during the war of 1812, so over two centuries. On the other hand, China annexed Tibet in 1959 (last country the US annexed was Hawaii in 1898), invaded Vietnam last in 1979, India in 1962 (with brief skirmishes taking place last in 1987), and they have had skirmishes against most of their neighbors. Being US neighbors seems to be a little safer vs a neighbor with China.



And guess what? This generation is growing up under Xi Zinping. Do we have to wait another 30-40 years for his generation to die until we finally see results? 80-90 years seems a lot of time to wait to see if the strategy will even work out.



Who says you need to go to war? Isolating them and frustrating their efforts, is a way to do it without open warfare.

Why do they need to be dealt with as an enemy in the first place? Why do they need to adopt a western style democracy? Hong Kong wasn’t a democracy under British rule.

Under Xi Zinping the Chinese have access and the ability to interact with the outside world on a daily basis. Change must naturally occur within that society otherwise it won’t last. The Taiwanese is an example of that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why do they need to be dealt with as an enemy in the first place? Why do they need to adopt a western style democracy? Hong Kong wasn’t a democracy under British rule.

Maybe they don’t, but is the current brutal, authoritarian, government going anywhere yet?

Under Xi Zinping the Chinese have access and the ability to interact with the outside world on a daily basis. Change must naturally occur within that society otherwise it won’t last. The Taiwanese is an example of that.

Your assumption is that when the young get into power, they’ll totally change things, is unfounded. Lots of people make claims that they’ll be in charge and things will be different, but they’re not. Remember, most of Japanese WW2 era leadership, studied abroad, before becoming leaders, generals, and admirals.