Iran vs the US Megathread

[The South Falls]

Yeah the Iranians are decades away from being able to hit the US with a nuke. Now hey do have a policy of Nuking Europe to retaliate for a US invasion.

Iran's nuclear weapons program circa 2020

The dictator was deadass one of the best movies I've ever watched

[US-SSR]

Bad man dead isn't the fucking problem. America potentially starting a war that will destroy another country in the middle east is.

So America should let Bad Man continue live and do bad things so it won't start a war?

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

[Tarsonis]

https://thehill.com/policy/internationa ... qi-militia


Further attacks on Iranian backed militias

[Nantoraka]

That's...quite the overreaction.

Wasn't the Syrian withdrawal supposed to start WW3?

Given how some people reacted to this (nukes, people?) I'm surprised it didn't lead up to the sun exploding

[US-SSR]

Bush was ridin' in trying to remove broccoli WMD's that didn't exist, and it doesn't look like Trump's going to go down the same path. I think that's because whatever Iran does, unless they pull a nuke out of their asses, will not be enough to start a war.

Because no one does. The White House has been pretty adamant that it doesn't want a war. They wanted to kill a terrorist who killed hundreds of US soldiers and was plotting to kill more. I'm sure Trump also wants to appear tough on terrorism.

Iran doesn't really want a war either. They just want to change the status quo so they can get back the grotesque nuclear deal that saved their economy from the Bush sanctions.

Nobody here actually wants a war. People need to stop being so hysterical.

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

[Northern Dependencies]

So America should let Bad Man continue live and do bad things so it won't start a war?

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of US soldiers. Only difference between him and Osama is that one held an official position in a military.

[Northern Dependencies]

Because no one does. The White House has been pretty adamant that it doesn't want a war. They wanted to kill a terrorist who killed hundreds of US soldiers and was plotting to kill more. I'm sure Trump also wants to appear tough on terrorism.

Iran doesn't really want a war either. They just want to change the status quo so they can get back the grotesque nuclear deal that saved their economy from the Bush sanctions.

Nobody here actually wants a war. People need to stop being so hysterical.

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

If Iran's feeling suicidal enough to risk a direct confrontation with the US then be my guest.

They aren't as stupid as you think they are.

[US-SSR]

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of US soldiers. Only difference between him and Osama is that one held an official position in a military.

"There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of Iranian soldiers." Understand now?

[Tarsonis]

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of US soldiers. Only difference between him and Osama is that one held an official position in a military.

In foreign affairs though that makes all the difference in the world.

[Northern Dependencies]

There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of US soldiers. Only difference between him and Osama is that one held an official position in a military.

"There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of Iranian soldiers." Understand now?

Nope. I'm not going to bend over to appease some terrorist shitstate. Kill our men and you'll deal with the consequences one day.

[Tarsonis]

Because no one does. The White House has been pretty adamant that it doesn't want a war. They wanted to kill a terrorist who killed hundreds of US soldiers and was plotting to kill more. I'm sure Trump also wants to appear tough on terrorism.

Iran doesn't really want a war either. They just want to change the status quo so they can get back the grotesque nuclear deal that saved their economy from the Bush sanctions.

Nobody here actually wants a war. People need to stop being so hysterical.

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

They can replace him in seconds for all it matters. His replacement is still gonna be seventeen steps behind where was at the moment of his immolation.

[Northern Dependencies]

There is nothing wrong with killing someone who's murdered hundreds of US soldiers. Only difference between him and Osama is that one held an official position in a military.

In foreign affairs though that makes all the difference in the world.

When dealing with a terror state the only appropriate approach is to treat them as terrorists.

[Napkizemlja]

So America should let Bad Man continue live and do bad things so it won't start a war?

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

Yeah, Iran long ago embraced assassination. Assassination is a valid tool of the state, security, foreign relations etc.

[US-SSR]

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

If Iran's feeling suicidal enough to risk a direct confrontation with the US then be my guest.

They aren't as stupid as you think they are.

If you come near an answer to my question feel free to post it. I'll repeat it for you: who do we assassinate once Iran resumes its attacks on US and allied interests? How many? For how long?

[Greed and Death]

Why not both ?

I like Single Malts, Tuscany and Bordeux.

So you want me to tell my rep on the Iranian government to nuke Scotland France and Italy ?

[Northern Dependencies]

If Iran's feeling suicidal enough to risk a direct confrontation with the US then be my guest.

They aren't as stupid as you think they are.

If you come near an answer to my question feel free to post it. I'll repeat it for you: who do we assassinate once Iran resumes its attacks on US and allied interests? How many? For how long?

Until they no longer pose a serious threat to US interests and stop murdering our soldiers.

[US-SSR]

False dichotomy. The choice isn't between assassination and doing nothing. One good reason for rejecting assassination as an instrument of national policy is that it tends to work both ways.

Yeah, Iran long ago embraced assassination. Assassination is a valid tool of the state, security, foreign relations etc.

So you're OK with Iran assassinating US generals, cabinet officials...presidents? It's a valid tool of the state after all.

[Northern Dependencies]

Yeah, Iran long ago embraced assassination. Assassination is a valid tool of the state, security, foreign relations etc.

So you're OK with Iran assassinating US generals, cabinet officials...presidents? It's a valid tool of the state after all.

Were you okay with killing bin Laden?

[US-SSR]

If you come near an answer to my question feel free to post it. I'll repeat it for you: who do we assassinate once Iran resumes its attacks on US and allied interests? How many? For how long?

Until they no longer pose a serious threat to US interests and stop murdering our soldiers.

How does a campaign of assassinations advance that goal? Even administration officials admit killing the last guy would have no affect on Iran's operational capabilities to inflict harm on US interests.

[Tarsonis]

Because no one does. The White House has been pretty adamant that it doesn't want a war. They wanted to kill a terrorist who killed hundreds of US soldiers and was plotting to kill more. I'm sure Trump also wants to appear tough on terrorism.

Iran doesn't really want a war either. They just want to change the status quo so they can get back the grotesque nuclear deal that saved their economy from the Bush sanctions.

Nobody here actually wants a war. People need to stop being so hysterical.

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

Not for nothing, we’ll assassinate as many as it takes. It’s a very delicate situation but can be done. You have to consider the state of Iran. It’s government only remains in control of the country through oppressive measures. Most Iranian civilians are dissatisfied with the Iranian Government, and further their views of the US are largely benign. It’s the Regime that’s the issue for us, not the people. It’s a delicate situation but can be maneuvered tactfully, but that we can achieve our objectives without undoing the progress the Iranian people have made

[Northern Dependencies]

Until they no longer pose a serious threat to US interests and stop murdering our soldiers.

How does a campaign of assassinations advance that goal? Even administration officials admit killing the last guy would have no affect on Iran's operational capabilities to inflict harm on US interests.

First of all, source.

Second of all, whoever they replace him with will be decades behind this man. They won't be as effective or as experienced of a leader.

[Tarsonis]

Until they no longer pose a serious threat to US interests and stop murdering our soldiers.

How does a campaign of assassinations advance that goal? Even administration officials admit killing the last guy would have no affect on Iran's operational capabilities to inflict harm on US interests.

Yeah that’s not what when the liberal press is saying

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch ... 5999813996

[US-SSR]

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

Not for nothing, we’ll assassinate as many as it takes. It’s a very delicate situation but can be done. You have to consider the state of Iran. It’s government only remains in control of the country through oppressive measures. Most Iranian civilians are dissatisfied with the Iranian Government, and further their views of the US are largely benign. It’s the Regime that’s the issue for us, not the people. It’s a delicate situation but can be maneuvered tactfully, but that we can achieve our objectives without undoing the progress the Iranian people have made

Would assassinating US leaders tend to divide or unite the US population behind its government? Why would Iran be different?

[Myrensis]

Once you start committing acts of war the choice of whether you want a war or not is no longer entirely in your hands. The opponent gets to move too. It took less than a day for Iran to replace their guy. Rest assured they will continue to attack the US and its allies interests in the Middle East. Who do we assassinate then? How many? For how long?

Not for nothing, we’ll assassinate as many as it takes. It’s a very delicate situation but can be done. You have to consider the state of Iran. It’s government only remains in control of the country through oppressive measures. Most Iranian civilians are dissatisfied with the Iranian Government, and further their views of the US are largely benign. It’s the Regime that’s the issue for us, not the people. It’s a delicate situation but can be maneuvered tactfully, but that we can achieve our objectives without undoing the progress the Iranian people have made

We'll be welcomed as liberators!...This time...I'm sure of it!

[US-SSR]

How does a campaign of assassinations advance that goal? Even administration officials admit killing the last guy would have no affect on Iran's operational capabilities to inflict harm on US interests.

First of all, source.

Second of all, whoever they replace him with will be decades behind this man. They won't be as effective or as experienced of a leader.

Google is your friend. By all accounts Soleimani's deputy is not "decades behind" his mentor. Is Pence "decades behind" Trump? Why would Iran be different?