World War Three?

[rogue06]

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



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.

[seanD]

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.

[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]

[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?

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.

[Watermelon]

[lilpixieofterror]