Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Finally Admits That It Shot Down the Ukrainian Airliner

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    Jón turned to Sveinn and said: Veit égađ, Sveinki! ("That I know, little Sveinn!") Ever since veit égađ, Sveinki has been a part of the Icelandic treasury of sayings, in this case meaning that something totally obvious has been stated.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3n_Arason
    Serious question Reg, do you think Trump is at fault for Iran shooting down a Ukrainian airliner?
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #47
      The Obama administration has deliberatedly aided ISIS by attacking the opponents of ISIS in Libya ( Gadaffi ) and Syria ( Assad )

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by marktwain View Post

        \good - we need someone to decipher how Barack Obama, the vicious warmaker who unleashed over 1,800 drone strikes in the Middle East; is the same POTUS who protected paid and enhanced all his 'Fellow Muslims.."

        Drone strikes against whom ? Against the enemies of ISIS.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          Serious question Reg, do you think Trump is at fault for Iran shooting down a Ukrainian airliner?
          No, he isn't.
          You May have noticed that I have been posting that I BELIEVE THE Assassination of Solemani was justifiable, as far as I can tell.
          No matter what opinion one holds of the 2003 invasion, the USA is down to 5,000 garrisoned troops. Solemani should have stayed home...
          BTW, do you believe the Catholic church should grant bishop Jon Arason sainthood?
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by marktwain View Post

            No, he isn't.
            You May have noticed that I have been posting that I BELIEVE THE Assassination of Solemani was justifiable, as far as I can tell.
            No matter what opinion one holds of the 2003 invasion, the USA is down to 5,000 garrisoned troops. Solemani should have stayed home...
            BTW, do you believe the Catholic church should grant bishop Jon Arason sainthood?
            Searching for a single point of blame is something you only do when trying to score points in some argument. Root cause analysis shows it’s extremely rare for any single event to have a single root cause. Catastrophic events are almost always due to a series of contributing factors.

            Is the US responsible for the destruction of the airplane? Hell, no. The Iranian missile battery is responsible.

            Did the killing of Solemani contribute to the shoot down? Probably.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              The Obama administration has deliberatedly aided ISIS by attacking the opponents of ISIS in Libya ( Gadaffi ) and Syria ( Assad )
              Saddam Hussein was a major enemy of ISIS/Islamic extremists as well. So perhaps the 2003 US invasion was the cause of the rise of ISIS?

              Lesson learned to improve global security and promote democracy: leave repressive dictators in power as long as possible

              Comment


              • #52
                The first gulf war did not cause the rise of ISIS, thus wht should the second gulf war cause the rise of ISIS ?
                It was perfectly possible in 2003 to leave Iraq after a few weeks and to let behind a strong Iraq ruled by a dictator .
                What the neocons and the liberals refused to admit ( and still refuse to accept ) is that a strong Iraq can only exist if it is ruled by a dictator : there is no place for democracy in Muslim countries and you can not exprt democracy made in US to the ME .
                I doubt that the ruling classes in the US ever will accept this reality ,which is that there are no universal norms, no universal political system and that the attempts to export democracy abroad the US will result in failure .

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  The first gulf war did not cause the rise of ISIS, thus wht should the second gulf war cause the rise of ISIS ?
                  It was perfectly possible in 2003 to leave Iraq after a few weeks and to let behind a strong Iraq ruled by a dictator .
                  What the neocons and the liberals refused to admit ( and still refuse to accept ) is that a strong Iraq can only exist if it is ruled by a dictator : there is no place for democracy in Muslim countries and you can not exprt democracy made in US to the ME .
                  I doubt that the ruling classes in the US ever will accept this reality ,which is that there are no universal norms, no universal political system and that the attempts to export democracy abroad the US will result in failure .
                  During the first Gulf War, the US was to trying to completely disarm Iraq from the WMDs it possessed. The objective was about liberating Kuwait. Thus, the first gulf war did not require an occupation of Iraq while the second war's objective required such occupation.

                  And you could not have a strong dictator of any kind a few weeks after destroying i his army. The majority of the Shia and the Kurds would have done the same thing they tried to do many times in the past - revolt. This happened also after the first gulf war, but Saddam survived it because he still possessed a big part of his army.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprising_in_Karbala

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq


                  In other words, the second war could not end up with leaving behind a strong dictator without having US forces supporting him from local revolts. ISIS was the result of the insurgency during the occupation when the most extreme parts of Sunni insurgency were fused with AQ in Iraq and morphed eventually to ISIS.
                  Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 04:55.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                    Searching for a single point of blame is something you only do when trying to score points in some argument. Root cause analysis shows it’s extremely rare for any single event to have a single root cause. Catastrophic events are almost always due to a series of contributing factors.

                    Is the US responsible for the destruction of the airplane? Hell, no. The Iranian missile battery is responsible.

                    Did the killing of Solemani contribute to the shoot down? Probably.
                    The airplane was shot because it was there . If it was not there, it would not have been destroyed .All the rest is to try to blame the US for the fact that Iran destroyed the aircraft .

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      During the first Gulf War, the US was to trying to completely disarm Iraq from the WMDs it possessed. The objective was about liberating Kuwait. Thus, the first gulf war did not require an occupation of Iraq while the second war's objective required such occupation.

                      And you could not have a strong dictator of any kind a few weeks after destroying i his army. The majority of the Shia and the Kurds would have done the same thing they tried to do many times in the past - revolt. This happened also after the first gulf war, but Saddam survived it because he still possessed a big part of his army.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprising_in_Karbala

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq


                      In other words, the second war could not end up with leaving behind a strong dictator without having US forces supporting him from local revolts. ISIS was the result of the insurgency during the occupation when the most extreme parts of Sunni insurgency were fused with AQ in Iraq and morphed eventually to ISIS.
                      There was no occupation needed after the second war : the objective of the second war was to eliminate Iraq as a threat for the survival of the USA .
                      Not the war, but the attempt by the liberals to Americanize Iraq is responsible for the raise of ISIS . And, as most ISIS killers were Iraqi, the Iraqi population is responsible for the ISIS atrocities : without the support of the Iraqi population, ISIS could not survive .
                      And the insurrection was not confined to the Sunni, Shia also attacked US soldiers : the Mahdi Army .
                      And there was no ISIS in 2003 .
                      Last edited by ljadw; 15 Jan 20, 06:12.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        During the first Gulf War, the US was to trying to completely disarm Iraq from the WMDs it possessed. The objective was about liberating Kuwait. Thus, the first gulf war did not require an occupation of Iraq while the second war's objective required such occupation.

                        And you could not have a strong dictator of any kind a few weeks after destroying i his army. The majority of the Shia and the Kurds would have done the same thing they tried to do many times in the past - revolt. This happened also after the first gulf war, but Saddam survived it because he still possessed a big part of his army.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprising_in_Karbala

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq


                        In other words, the second war could not end up with leaving behind a strong dictator without having US forces supporting him from local revolts. ISIS was the result of the insurgency during the occupation when the most extreme parts of Sunni insurgency were fused with AQ in Iraq and morphed eventually to ISIS.


                        If we are going to blame the US for what the Iranians did all because we killed Solemani, then we don't get to stop at that incident simply because the US did it.
                        The question becomes how far do we go back?
                        The Iranians have been attacking US troops for years (1980s) why shouldn't we be considering that? This is all "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" reasoning anyway and illogical.
                        Or maybe we should look at the incident itself and recognize that the Iranians weren't having to deal with anything from the US when they shot down the airplane. They were in complete control and are solely responsible for those deaths.

                        Had the US done anything in Iranian airspace, I think the Iranians would be better positioned to heap some blame on the US. But we didn't.
                        It is stunnung to see people try to exonerate those who were in complete control of the situation and blame the US simply because trump is president.
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          The question becomes how far do we go back?
                          Salamis.

                          This is a military history board after all
                          Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

                          Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                            Salamis.

                            This is a military history board after all


                            Damn Greeks.
                            I agree. it is all their fault.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                              If we are going to blame the US for what the Iranians did all because we killed Solemani, then we don't get to stop at that incident simply because the US did it.
                              The question becomes how far do we go back?
                              The Iranians have been attacking US troops for years (1980s) why shouldn't we be considering that? This is all "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" reasoning anyway and illogical.
                              Or maybe we should look at the incident itself and recognize that the Iranians weren't having to deal with anything from the US when they shot down the airplane. They were in complete control and are solely responsible for those deaths.

                              Had the US done anything in Iranian airspace, I think the Iranians would be better positioned to heap some blame on the US. But we didn't.
                              It is stunnung to see people try to exonerate those who were in complete control of the situation and blame the US simply because trump is president.
                              Nope! When we go far back in the past, we see that the US casualties come from proxies who cooperated with Iran and I gave declassified documents showing how the US was more than capable of taking revenge by helping third parties like Saddam use WMDs against Iran.

                              But in any case, how is anything of what you say related to my quote which you address?

                              My quote is counterargument to the point that the second gulf war did not require an occupation. It has nothing to do with the current situation or with events in the 1980s. And I explained why the US mission in the second gulf war required an occupation without making any moral judgment about the necessity or not to attack Iraq after 9/11
                              Last edited by pamak; 15 Jan 20, 18:05.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X