Iran

[Guest MattP]

Big IF but if that is it from Iran everything should calm down very quickly.

 

Unless this is the "official" response and it will continue now unofficially through its proxies as it often does in the middle east.

 

Hopefully they've now finally realised its Trump in charge of the US and not Obama anymore, this stuff isnt going to be tolerated.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

Big IF but if that is it from Iran everything should calm down very quickly.

 

Unless this is the "official" response and it will continue now unofficially through its proxies as it often does in the middle east.

 

Hopefully they've now finally realised its Trump in charge of the US and not Obama anymore, this stuff isnt going to be tolerated.

Hold up, so now Trump is doing (or threatening) the same exact same thing he tried to criticise Obama for about six years ago (as seen in the "Also in the News" thread) and it's suddenly a good thing? How exactly does that work?

[VLC86]

2 hours ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

I’ve seen that Iran are refusing to hand over the black box. 

Shock, it’s clearly been hit by a missile.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Hold up, so now Trump is doing (or threatening) the same exact same thing he tried to criticise Obama for about six years ago (as seen in the "Also in the News" thread) and it's suddenly a good thing? How exactly does that work?

Where did I say it was a good thing? I didnt.

 

I'm making the point Iran now realises Trump is prepared to hurt them, unlike bend-over Barack.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where did I say it was a good thing? I didnt.

 

I'm making the point Iran now realises Trump is prepared to hurt them, unlike bend-over Barack.

You didn't have to, the inference (emphasised by the second sentence here) made it obvious.

 

A large part of Trumps election appeal (and a fair amount of his support now) is the idea that he wouldn't be as beholden to foreign interventions as his predecessors. Disregarding that pretty much entirely to support Trumps actions here is...well, perhaps just a mite disingenuous.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You didn't have to, the inference (emphasised by the second sentence here) made it obvious.

 

A large part of Trumps election appeal (and a fair amount of his support now) is the idea that he wouldn't be as beholden to foreign interventions as his predecessors. Disregarding that pretty much entirely to support Trumps actions here is...well, perhaps just a mite disingenuous.

Read what I'm writing, not what you want to read what you think is written. Hopefully Iran realising something is the only hope here of de-escalation, I think that's obvious.

 

I have no idea whether Trump's action will be proven right or wrong, but we do know Obama's pandering to Iran was the latter, since the JCPOA we've seen Iran expand, they enhanced their missile system, they made huge gains in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and many of the billions they got from it funded the Quds operations - for something that was supposed to restrain the country the result was laughable.

[The Syrup]

2 hours ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

I’ve seen that Iran are refusing to hand over the black box. 

The crash happened in Iran, therefore any investigation will be done by them and they don't have to hand the boxes over to anyone if they don't want. Ideal situation for a cover up though if a missile was the cause. When MH17 was shot down by mistake the wreckage fell in Ukraine so the Russians couldn't cover it up. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Read what I'm writing, not what you want to read what you think is written. Hopefully Iran realising something is the only hope here of de-escalation, I think that's obvious.

 

I have no idea whether Trump's action will be proven right or wrong, but we do know Obama's pandering to Iran was the latter, since the JCPOA we've seen Iran expand, they enhanced their missile system, they made huge gains in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and many of the billions they got from it funded the Quds operations - for something that was supposed to restrain the country the result was laughable.

I'm curious to know how "Hopefully they've now finally realised its Trump in charge of the US and not Obama anymore, this stuff isnt going to be tolerated" is anything other than a tacit or otherwise admission that the course of action being taken is a good one, but fair enough.

 

I, as you, am unsure of whether the events of today will be held to be right or wrong in the future, but my point rather clearly is that Trump himself castigated Obama for even considering doing something like this back in 2013, and now has done it himself - at the start of an election year, no less. That's some pretty serious Do As I Say, Not As I Do going on right there - and oddly enough, no admission that he was wrong previously, either.

[Izzy]

Great song, great hair 

 

 

[ozleicester]

29 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Great song, great hair 

 

 

I have THE most embarrassing video of me "dancing" to this at my engagement party... A combination of Skiing and bouncing up and down... ahh the 80s

[E.Rose]

BBC News Posted at 16:3716:37

US will impose new 'punishing' sanctions

President Trump says the US will impose "'additional punishing sanctions" on Iran, which has already faced hardship from US sanctions under the Trump administration.

 

[sm1]

[The Syrup]

Allegedly part of a surface to air missile found in the wreckage of the Iranian crash, although nothing confirmed. 

 

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Do As I Say, Not As I Do going on right there 

You don’t seem to mind that when environmentalists do that.

[Collymore]

Plane possibly brought down to deflect attention away from airbase stikes?

 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Strokes said:

You don’t seem to mind that when environmentalists do that.

Ah, yes. Had a little chat with Kopf in the Other News thread on this particular matter, too.

 

I'll say the same thing here as I did there, paraphrased somewhat: hypocrisy by parties that don't really have much power to affect the fundamentals of a situation by themselves is irritating and should be called out, but is ultimately irrelevant in terms of the overall matter being discussed because of that lack of power (and no, hypocritical Hollywood luvvies don't have the power to do something real about climate change by themselves, as moneyed as they are). Hypocrisy by someone who has a very great deal of power to affect a situation (as is Trump in this case) is rather different. As with a lot of things, the difference comes down to the amount of power any one party has.

 

And, again: I'll gladly admit to my own biases and how they lead to me being a hypocrite on the matter pretty often too (as far as I'm concerned, and as I've said before, preserving civilisation in the face of climate change is worth almost any cost IMO), but that doesn't stop the two situations being rather different due to that big difference in power.

[leicsmac]

Speaking of hypocrisy:

 

[Guest SO1]

15 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Looks like a deliberate miss from Iran, on a very large base or two chosen so they could hit some old kit and not escalate anything.

 

Iran are a problem though, they fund terrorism all over the place;  hard to deal with.

and the US and the UK don't? Look at Syria. Know what the word proxy means?

Educate yourself as much as you can and I know that takes time that most of us don't have. Our corrupt governments depend on it.

 

[Guest SO1]

19 minutes ago, Collymore said:

Plane possibly brought down to deflect attention away from airbase stikes?

 

Probably the CIA through their proxies in Iran. Pissed off at the deal that the Ukrainians and the Russians made for Gas or LNG.

Mad that countries are finding a way to resolve their differences and create a way towards peace.

[Guest SO1]

11 hours ago, The Syrup said:

The crash happened in Iran, therefore any investigation will be done by them and they don't have to hand the boxes over to anyone if they don't want. Ideal situation for a cover up though if a missile was the cause. When MH17 was shot down by mistake the wreckage fell in Ukraine so the Russians couldn't cover it up. 

So the Russians did it? According to whose agenda? Sad when absolutely no one can be trusted to do the right thing.

[Guest SO1]

15 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

We hope that Trump's tweet and the lack of news on casualties (plus news that Iraqi, Canadian and UK personnel are fine) means everything is OK on that front, it's what I'd expect but still need confirmation. If there turns out to be casualties then most of what I'm about to say will be wrong. 

 

It was quite incredible seeing twitter as it unfolded last night, the dissoluteness of people panicking them themselves into a frenzy, even from people that should know better, was the most alarming thing. Too many people thinking it was like the Blitz rather than Iran firing missiles at vast bits of desert, albeit symbolic bits. Moreover, they signalled their intentions in the last few days (maybe even sent a message through the back channels) and the US knew to be prepared. It's not ideal but didn't require the reactions that now sees plenty of people climbing back down the ladder after they worked themselves into a frenzy. 

 

But the fact still remains that Iran, whilst there may be a culture of martyrdom, knows that whilst it can hurt the US and its allies, it will not win a full blown war. Iran has spent years mugging off the US because the US let it but finally the US bit back in a significant way that might make Iran a bit more wary. This, and probably a few more subsequent indirect actions, is Iran saving face at home, pretending to be strong and mighty in facing up to the US for its domestic audience (Iran trumps anywhere in the west for nationalism and jingoism). 

 

There's still plenty of potential for accidental escalation and Donald is the great unknown, he is more than capable of doing something stupid in reacting to this. Hopefully, he'll bluster and talk the big man for a bit whilst taking Iran's implicit offer of letting the big stuff slide away again for a bit. Can't forget that many people will still suffer as a result of Iran's retaliation but unfortunately that's standard, swathes of people have to suffer at the hands of Iran all the time. 

swaths of people have to suffer at the hands of the US and UK all the time.......... fixed it for you

One thing is for certain. The US/UK and friends will be leaving Iraq or they will bankrupt themselves morally and financially staying.

The dollar as the world's reserve currency is ending. The rest of the world is tired of being a slave to our interests. Kiss the empire goodbye.

[TheLittleBigMan]

Not much mention of international law on the matter. The united nations charter clearly sates there must be evidence of an imminent threat or attack on a country to justify a killing such as the one trump has just committed - no evidence has been provided nor is any forthcoming and yet this never seems to be discussed in the public domain. So many war crimes are being committed and we never seem to discuss the legality's of any of them.  

 

The countries with the biggest controlling interests in this world, along with the corporations they work with are quiet literally getting away with murder. 

[TheLittleBigMan]

Lets have a war against the arms industry while we're at it. How about that for an idea?

[MC Prussian]

What grinds me most is people over here either deliberately or unknowingly talking about an impending global crisis or new World War when referring to Iran. This is nuts.

Know your history, know the current state of international affairs.

 

Anyone with a clear sense of the current geopolitical situation in the area, including people who know how Shia Muslims tick in times of crisis know that Iran simply cannot afford going to war with the US or any other Western nation.

They're not the savages they are made out to be. And Iran has never (directly) started a war on their own. They may retaliate, but they are usually not the ones to attack first. Their modus operandi is much more sneaky, they are more concealed in their actions, they are apt at instigating terror or terrorist attacks without starting it themselves directly.

Their military and military technology is weak in comparison, they are surrounded by US airbases and a US fleet in the international waters to the South, and there's plenty of Iranians who would rejoice the current regime's downfall, people who are vastly fed up with the Islamist State the country has become in the past 40+ years, longing for more progress and Western values again, freedom of speech and the liberation of women.

All Iran can do is pretend to be strong, so that it doesn't lose its people any more, then spin it on state channels, such as their State TV.

 

What you see in terms of air strikes is a deflection maneuver in order to appease its own government, religious leaders and other people in charge.

 

This is but two states flexing their muscles a bit, one clearly having an advantage over the other. It's a mismatch, Iran are simply trying to look better than they really are in order to save face.

They can't keep this up forever.

Trump is playing it smart to me - by not attacking Iran (for now), he'll remain gracious up until further notice.

 

Stop believing the hype. We'll be fine.

What Iran needs is a regime change, but anyone with a brain knows you can't force it. But what you can do is create the basis for a democratic process.

Hopefully, Iran will find back to its glory days during my lifetime and Khamenei's reign will come to an end sooner than later, and the ghost of Khomeini be gone.

 

 

 

 

[Milo]