The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   News US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=429054)

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 1:55 PM

US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated
 
The United States last night attacked Baghdad airport, killing multiple people including it's target one of Iran's top government officials Qassem Soleimani. This CNBC article I think does a fair job of recapping the underlying conflicts between Iran and US over the past couple of years that are coming to a head here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/top-iranian-general-qassim-soleimani-killed-in-us-airstrike-in-baghdad-pentagon.html

Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif calls the assassination of their top general an act of international terrorism by the United States, and says that the "U.S bears responsibility for all consequences in it's rogue adventurism."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the U.S was performing a pre-emptive strike to defend itself, and that they have intelligence showing Soleimani had planned an "imminent" attack on Americans deployed in the region.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/03/qasem-soleimani-killing-pompeo-says-airstrike-response-threat/2802844001/

Pompeo has not disclosed intelligence evidence of a plot at the this time, and UN official Agnes Callamard argues the airstrike is a violation of International Law.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/us-airstrike-that-killed-qassim-soleimani-of-iran-violates-human-rights-law-un-official-says/

Here are worldwide reactions to this volatile situation.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/03/world/iran-killing-triggers-global-alarm-we-are-waking-up-more-dangerous-world/

This is arguably an act of war, one that threatens to also engulf Iraq again as this attack was carried out without the approval of the Iraqi government by the United States on Iraq's soil. I would expect some form of response by Iran, and then another response by the United States. I don't know how far this will escalate, but global affairs are not off to a good start in 2020...

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 2:21 PM

So far from what I read, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 500 US soldiers, worked on the attack on the US Embassy ( An act of war, as any Embassy is considered the soil of the home country ), and was largely considered the most dangerous terrorist since Osama Bin Laden.

The U.S. has been in a quiet war with Iran for four decades, and been in a proxy war with them in Iraq for over almost two decades, it is good that there was finally a punch back to this monster.

Nanusmightyena January 3rd, 2020 2:37 PM

While what Trump did was probably deserved, there’s a good chance it’s gonna cause WW3.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 2:48 PM

What Trump did, whether the guy deserved it or not, was pretty par for the course for his stupidity and inability to actually follow through on anything he promises.

You do not kill a foreign diplomat on a third party's soil without even informing that country that you will be undertaking military action. Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack? If they did, that's a whole other clusterfuck.

As for Trump's inability to keep a promise, let's not forget that he was supposedly pulling troops out of the Middle East? Now he's sending them back, and let's not pretend he hasn't been spoiling for open war with Iran for months now. Every time the US pokes its nose into the middle-east, things get worse not better and it is high time the US government stopped acting like the world's authority on everything because every country they interlope in ends up worse than where they started.

We don't need yet another Gulf War.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109259)
Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack?

The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109268)
The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109274)
Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109276)
Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109279)
Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

Wouldn’t the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109281)
Wouldn’t the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109309)
Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven’t seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn’t going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran’s number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109312)
The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven’t seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn’t going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran’s number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109322)
What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

Maedar January 3rd, 2020 5:46 PM

Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109324)
Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109350)
If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

What concrete proof are you looking for? He is the top military leader in Iran, he is responsible for crisis and attacks across the Middle East, he was meeting with the top leader of Kata'lb Hizballah days after attacks on the embassy. What further proof do you need?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109350)
Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

Informing the Iraqi Government could lead to him being tipped off that something was about to happen, there was an Iraqi general there, so it is not impossible to believe that there were members of the Iraqi government sympathetic to the Iranian regime.

Also while he could be targeted elsewhere, as he traveled across the Middle East, doing so would not have taken out the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah as well, and it would potentially allow any plans made during the meeting to go forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

So the choice is to take out one of the worst terrorists in the world, or... make sure the Iranian people hate us less?

Maedar January 3rd, 2020 6:49 PM

Craziest part, Trump is actually stupid enough to think this will incite a rebellion in Iran. How dumb can someone get?

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 7:09 PM

I am of an age where I can remember the start of the Iraq war. Thwarting the alleged Soleimani plot sounds uncomfortably close to the script used for invading Iraq. We did a "pre-emptive strike" there too, and it was based on false intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. So my default position is skepticism until we can examine all of the evidence ourselves, and not just take Trump's word or Pompeo's.

As much as this situation reminds me of Iraq, Trump's infinitely crazier than Bush, as even George Bush specifically ruled out assassinating Soleimani, understanding that it would be a potentially irreversible point of escalation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-obama-bush-and-bibi-all-passed-on-killing-qassem-soleimani

Trump also has to know this, but wants to open that Pandora's box.

I cannot see the United States as victims acting only in self-defense though I'm American. I see this as part of a larger pattern of actions by Trump to try to make peace with Iran impossible, starting with tearing up the Iran Nuclear deal and burying them in sanctions, though Iran was abiding by the terms agreed. We took further punitive action against Iran for the Saudi Arabia oil field attack that the Houthis of Yemen actually claimed responsible for, not Iran.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html?no-st=9999999999

We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8

I don't believe the doublespeak by the United States government that they don't want escalation in Iran. Yes, they do.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109365)
We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

Yeah but the mine did bear a striking resemblance to mines that the Iranian military displayed during parades, and did come at a time when Iran was taking over and attacking ships in the area.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-news-us-shows-limpet-mine-parts-case-against-iran-in-tanker-attacks-today-2019-06-19/

A Revolutionary Guard boat also approached the tanker later and removed an unexploded mine.

https://apnews.com/6a48842e263541a5b3451f0d41dee01a

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109365)
I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8.

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109370)

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

It would be considered an offensive action for that very reason, If It's retaliatory then it's not strictly defensive. It is also an act of aggression.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 7:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109377)
It would be considered an offensive action for that very reason, If It's retaliatory then it's not strictly defensive. It is also an act of aggression.

Unless of course the attack was also to prevent further attacks such as the one seen at the embassy.

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109379)
Unless of course the attack was also to prevent further attacks such as the one seen at the embassy.

Something that could maybe be happen in the future is not imminent danger. That's making an example to frighten, it is not self-defense. You can believe the United States should have drone striked the airport-- I do not, I don't believe this was an appropriate level of force in response to the embassy attack even if the people we killed really were behind it, and it will have political repercussions beyond what we saw at the embassy. I think Trump just made us less safe. However, even if you think this was a good thing, it's still would be considered offense. Trump wouldn't have been able to act so unilaterally with Iran if the defense authorization act hadn't been gutted, and I think removing that ammendent is evidence that the United States has setting the stage for a conflict for some time, undermines our government arguement that they don't want an escalation.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
Something that could maybe be happen in the future is not imminent danger. That's making an example to frighten, it is not self-defense.

Considering the general was a known terrorist leader and plotter, meeting with a group had just attacked US soil, it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans and preparations for future terror attacks, thus fulfilling the requirement for self defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
However, even if you think this was a good thing, it's still would be considered offense.

Preventing a meeting between terrorists that had attacked us previously and showed every intention of attacking again, is offensive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
Trump wouldn't have been able to act so unilaterally with Iran if the defense authorization act hadn't been gutted, and I think removing that ammendent is evidence that the United States has setting the stage for a conflict for some time, undermines our government arguement that they don't want an escalation.

Doubtful, even if it had been passed, the amendment allowed for an attack with congressional authorization. Is Congress really going to prevent an attack that could very well stop another attack on the embassy or US personal and forces in the Middle East just days after the previous embassy attack? No, they would have authorized it, as not doing so, would make them even worse when the next attack happens and it is reported that they could have stopped it.

VisionofMilotic January 4th, 2020 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109398)
Considering the general was a known terrorist leader and plotter, meeting with a group had just attacked US soil, it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans and preparations for future terror attacks, thus fulfilling the requirement for self defense.



Preventing a meeting between terrorists that had attacked us previously and showed every intention of attacking again, is offensive?



Doubtful, even if it had been passed, the amendment allowed for an attack with congressional authorization. Is Congress really going to prevent an attack that could very well stop another attack on the embassy or US personal and forces in the Middle East just days after the previous embassy attack? No, they would have authorized it, as not doing so, would make them even worse when the next attack happens and it is reported that they could have stopped it.


This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together.

Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States.

In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/

This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise.

The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran/u-s-officially-designates-irans-revolutionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 2:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together.

Well lets break this down, because time would have been a factor Trump would have had to have gone to the Gang of 8 for authorization, a full deliberation of Congress would have been useless as not only would it be sharing classified material openly, but time being the issue, and Congress moving at a snail's pace, would not be able to accomplish authorization in the required time. The intelligence Gang of 8 consists of.

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, David Nunes, Richard Burr, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have shown support for the attack on twitter, that leaves the 4 Democrats being the only ones who could have opposed this. 4 Democrats, opposing the killing of the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah, who had just attacked the embassy, and a man responsible for the killings of 500 to 600 Americans.

Yeah, I am sorry but there is no way that those 4 top Democrats are going to take responsibility, in an election year, to not stop these two people if presented the opportunity. Especially since such a meeting between the general and Kata'lb Hizballah, could very well result in another embassy attack or deaths of US personnel.

It would be Benghazi 2.0 right before the 2020 election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States.

I am fully aware of his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/

That is great, but lets not bury what kind of mass murderer this man was.

He planned a strike on US soil, that would have killed US civilians, along with the Saudi Ambassador in 2011.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/04/iran-agents-once-plotted-kill-saudi-ambassador-dc-case-reads-like-spy-thriller/

He instructed his militia leaders in Iraq to step up their attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq using weapons provided by Iran.

Two weeks before he moved rockets that could target helicopters into Iraq.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

He is responsible for the building and shipping of IED and other weapons into Iraq to destabilize the country and fuel a civil war that targeted US troops between 2005 to 2007 which claimed the lives of over 600 US troops and injured thousands more.

He also allegedly had direct planning, financing, and directing of the 2012 terror attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-twisted-terrible-reign-of-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani/

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise.

If for two decades the US had been leading attacks in a undeclared war against a country and it's personnel, killing hundreds of it's troops and civilians, and targeting its embassies, along with planning an attack on it's home soil. Would you not expect that country to consider the man who planned and led those operations to be a target for attack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran/u-s-officially-designates-irans-revolutionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE

While IRGC may be new to it's designation as a terrorist group, Qassem Suleimani is not, he was on the terror list during the Obama Administration.

https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani

Peace? Peace? Are you serious?

Again I point out that this man was shipping weapons into Iraq as recently as October and telling the militias there to step up the targets and attacks.

Lets look at this "peace" we achieved under Obama with Iran, we already covered the Benghazi attacks and the planned bombing on U.S. soil.

We have the capture of US soldiers on January 12, 2016 which resulted in release of pictures of them bound, a direct violation of the Geneva convention.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-photographs-navy-sailors-war-crime-or-just-outrage

Iran through its use of Hezbollah was responsible for shipping countless number of drugs into Europe and America, the money of which was used to further finance terror operations.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

They engaged in various acts of cyber espionage targeting the state department and various other civilian targets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-hackers-cyberespionage-state-department-social-media.html

I could go on and on, but I think it is rather clear that Iran, despite the nuclear accord, was still willing to act in a non peaceful manner, in attempts to humiliate and hurt the U.S.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.