100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[JimEverett]

Why do all of this crap with Iran then? Why not just pull out and leave?

Well, they did attack us.

 

[MT15]

I thought this Twitter thread was poignant and touches on Trump’s willingness to flout the Geneva Convention.

 

[coldseat]

It all depends on how long Trump is in office and what his successor does.

Trump's "attacks" have been reactive, which works in his favor. He has been restrained but has certainly thrown Iran a serious curve ball by targeting Soleimani.

Europe has not shown willingness to violate sanctions and probably will have no reason to in future if the Straits of Hormuz are open to navigation.

Russia benefits from Iran's oil being off the market and China is showing every sign of playing along in order to maintain access to ME oil.

US oil production is up and continues to increase which decreases the relevance of ME oil for everyone.

If the US re-elects Trump and his successor is willing to stay the course, I think Iran will undergo an internal revolution. If not, we are likely to see a return to the bad policy of the past and a resurgent Iran.

Iran has been at war with the United States since the overthrow of the Shah. I don't think the character of that war is going to change significantly in the short term. Obviously, Iran knows provoking a US ground invasion would be suicidal.

The frequency of Iranian proxy attacks will increase the closer we get to the election.

Iran has to carefully avoid doing anything that gets world opinion solidly against them. However, they have a huge opportunity at the moment because of the political situation here in the United States. I would assume they are taking careful note of the reaction to the Soleimani strike and are planning to make hay while the sun shines.

That's a fairy tail in the sky assessment. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't ever seem like they will pull out? But at least you have a hope of a road forward that you're going by.

Let me ask you, why do you believe this?

Obviously, Iran knows provoking a US ground invasion would be suicidal.

It seems I've head that with with every middle east war, conflict and invasion that we've undertaken. We heard it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're still in both countries spending trillions. Can we (the US) really afford to do that again as a country in another middle east war with Iran, if it came to that? Why do you think that Iran thinks it's suicidal? Do you not believe they're factoring in American's desire to engage in a middle east war, with their actions. Especially when we keep saying we don't want to go to war with them?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Why do all of this crap with Iran then? Why not just pull out and leave?

Technically, any embassy is sovereign territory. Iran planned and executed an attack on sovereign US territory. A response was to be expected.

Leaving without a response was not a good option.

Leaving post response would be fine with me but whether we leave an embassy in Baghdad becomes a tricky issue in such a scenario.

 

[coldseat]

Well, they did attack us.

We didn't kill their general because they had attacked us, at least that wasn't the reason given. We assassinated him because according to the pentagon, they were planning attacks (assuming you take the pentagons word, as no evidence has yet to be produced).

 

[JimEverett]

We didn't kill their general because they had attacked us, at least that wasn't the reason given. We assassinated him because according to the pentagon, they were planning attacks (assuming you take the pentagons word, as no evidence has yet to be produced).

Seems as if several reasons were given according to the DoD, including the embassy attack and also future attacks.

Statement by the Department of Defense

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard

www.defense.gov

Regardless, it is clear the situation is not one where there is legitimate reasoning to have to choose between retaliation or leaving Baghdad - as your original question suggested.

 

[Archies Ghost]

That's a fairy tail in the sky assessment. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't ever seem like they will pull out? But at least you have a hope of a road forward that you're going by.

Let me ask you, why do you believe this?



It seems I've head that with with every middle east war, conflict and invasion that we've undertaken. We heard it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're still in both countries spending trillions. Can we (the US) really afford to do that again as a country in another middle east war with Iran, if it came to that? Why do you think that Iran thinks it's suicidal? Do you not believe they're factoring in American's desire to engage in a middle east war, with their actions. Especially when we keep saying we don't want to go to war with them?

The US wins the war and proceeds to totally screw up afterward. The United States is unwilling to do what is required of an occupation and too stupid to just pack up and leave.

I have absolutely no doubt that the United States would win any traditional military operation against Iran.

I also have no doubt that we would neither immediately withdraw all presence nor engage in the sort draconian occupation required to create a functioning society from the rubble.

So, while the Ayatollah might know that the US would get bogged down for decades in Iran if he provokes, he also knows that he and his pals will not live to see the Great Satan suffer so.

I don't think they are motivated to martyr themselves, only the dupes following them.

 

[samiam5211]

The US wins the war and proceeds to totally screw up afterward. The United States is unwilling to do what is required of an occupation and too stupid to just pack up and leave.

Then we didn’t win the war.

The problem is using the military in an offensive way.

If a war is truly defensive in nature, the military conflict is 90% of the war.

We’ve been using the military (either through action or just the possibility of action) to help solve geopolitical, economic, or humanitarian problems for so long that we look at these things as part of our national defense. They aren’t. Not really.

We’ve got to stop considering our economic prosperity as a national defense issue. Our soldiers shouldn’t be used to protect the price of oil, our 401k, or the 1%’s ability to make their great grandchildren multimillionaires simply by their birth.

 

[coldseat]

Seems as if several reasons were given according to the DoD, including the embassy attack and also future attacks.

Statement by the Department of Defense

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard

www.defense.gov

Regardless, it is clear the situation is not one where there is legitimate reasoning to have to choose between retaliation or leaving Baghdad - as your original question suggested.

I'm just trying to figure out why it's a good thing to leave now when we've already engaged in these hostilities with Iran that don't really have an endpoint in sight. I'm not sure how this makes anything better or how our military will be better positioned in leaving Iraq (really being thrown out of Iraq), as opposed to staying given the actions that we've chosen to engage in.

 

[coldseat]

The US wins the war and proceeds to totally screw up afterward. The United States is unwilling to do what is required of an occupation and too stupid to just pack up and leave.

I have absolutely no doubt that the United States would win any traditional military operation against Iran.

I also have no doubt that we would neither immediately withdraw all presence nor engage in the sort draconian occupation required to create a functioning society from the rubble.

So, while the Ayatollah might know that the US would get bogged down for decades in Iran if he provokes, he also knows that he and his pals will not live to see the Great Satan suffer so.

I don't think they are motivated to martyr themselves, only the dupes following them.

That's not a win for the US. That's just more of the same. I'm not convinced in the least that Iran sees it your way. You're reaching.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm just trying to figure out why it's a good thing to leave now when we've already engaged in these hostilities with Iran that don't really have an endpoint in sight. I'm not sure how this makes anything better or how our military will be better positioned in leaving Iraq (really being thrown out of Iraq), as opposed to staying given the actions that we've chosen to engage in.

We killed a guy responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, perhaps hundreds of American deaths, and had recently planned and executed an attack on our embassy. I am not sure what other justification would be needed to kill him. Nor do I understand why that, in itself, cannot be considered the endpoint from our perspective.

 

[coldseat]

We killed a guy responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, perhaps hundreds of American deaths, and had recently planned and executed an attack on our embassy. I am not sure what other justification would be needed to kill him. Nor do I understand why that, in itself, cannot be considered the endpoint from our perspective.

Because that action, nor it's reasoning is isolated. It's connected to everything else going on and has numerous ramifications. So you can't justify taking that action without considering what will be the fallout from carrying it out and having a plan for that.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

We killed a guy responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, perhaps hundreds of American deaths, and had recently planned and executed an attack on our embassy. I am not sure what other justification would be needed to kill him. Nor do I understand why that, in itself, cannot be considered the endpoint from our perspective.

If killing him leads to Iraq becoming a client state of Iran and Iran developing nuclear weapons, was it worth it?

I'm not saying that is definitely what will happen, but when we engage in this type of action against high ranking official of a foreign country, the whole picture needs to be taken into account.

 

[Intensesaint]

Somehow Trump’s supporters will give him credit for ending our occupation of Iraq because he got us kicked out.

So you want our men and women there to be targest of terrorists like Soleimani?

Also you realize they are asking ALL foreign troops to leave their country, not just the US.

 

[Archies Ghost]

That's not a win for the US. That's just more of the same. I'm not convinced in the least that Iran sees it your way. You're reaching.

I think 40 years of avoiding provoking the US into a serious war is all the proof anyone with any objectivity needs to know that the mullahs do not want to fight the US in a traditional military conflict.

You have contorted yourself into a pretzel here.

 

[JimEverett]

If killing him leads to Iraq becoming a client state of Iran and Iran developing nuclear weapons, was it worth it?

I'm not saying that is definitely what will happen, but when we engage in this type of action against high ranking official of a foreign country, the whole picture needs to be taken into account.

Iraq is already a client state of Iran. It was the predictable outcome of the Iraq war. We have been there for 17 years and Iran controls the government. It is time to move on. But we won't. W will claim we need troops holed up in Baghdad in order to fight Isis.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Iraq is already a client state of Iran. It was the predictable outcome of the Iraq war. We have been there for 17 years and Iran controls the government. It is time to move on. But we won't. W will claim we need troops holed up in Baghdad in order to fight Isis.

Who is W? Bush?

So, what are the US objectives with respect to Iran? Was assassinating Soleimani the best method to achieve those objectives?

There was growing sentiment against Iran growing in Iraq prior to this, and more protests in Iran against the regime. Do you think this action helps or hurts?

 

[samiam5211]

So you want our men and women there to be targest of terrorists like Soleimani?

Also you realize they are asking ALL foreign troops to leave their country, not just the US.

You act like the answers to either of those questions matter.

No one wants our soldiers to be in harms way. You are framing the question like it’s: put Troops in danger? Circle one - Yes No

Are you suggesting there is a meaningful difference between asking all forces to leave V/S US forces?