Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(01-05-2020, 09:54 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2020, 06:27 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]How about you give us some evidence backing up your claim. I can't find a single shred of evidence supporting it.
https://carnegie-mec.org/2017/04/28/popu...-pub-68810
No one said they weren't there. Yeah they were there fighting when ISIS first appeared, but half the country was lost under their support and weak Iraqi leadership. The tide didn't turn until the US lead coalition arrived on the scene and took the war over.
So it's safe to say the ones who actually beat ISIS in Iraq are the greatest contributor to the war against ISIS.
(01-06-2020, 12:21 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2020, 09:54 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]https://carnegie-mec.org/2017/04/28/popu...-pub-68810
No one said they weren't there. Yeah they were there fighting when ISIS first appeared, but half the country was lost under their support and weak Iraqi leadership. The tide didn't turn until the US lead coalition arrived on the scene and took the war over.
So it's safe to say the ones who actually beat ISIS in Iraq are the greatest contributor to the war against ISIS.
You have your timeline confused a bit. The situation has always been fluid. Each unit has different loyalties. Some units took commands from the US for a while even though their main loyalty is with Khamenei. Everything was simple so long as US and Iranian interests aligned. Now things are less simple. Regardless of who actually contributed more to the war effort, ordinary Iraqis get a big say in who gets to stay.
(01-05-2020, 06:58 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2020, 06:18 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]So you are trying to say we didn't equip pay and command forces against ISIS?
It was the US led coalition who won the biggest battle and broke the back of ISIS when we took back Mosul. Any support Iran has given pales in comparison to the significance and scope of that one battle alone
You really like to just make up stuff.
Oh we definitely did equip, pay, and command forces against ISIS. But so did Iran. And a lot of the militia dudes who were in our orbit are now in theirs, as the mission to defeat ISIS is winding down.
Are you claiming that the Iranian contribution to ground forces against ISIS had more effect than the US air attacks?
ISIS was slowly losing ground under Obama until Trump was elected. ISIS was obliterated under Trump. The timing is strong evidence that the US was the biggest factor.
I love how you Democrats are so invested in Trump hate that you are defending the terrorist theocracy in Iran.
(01-06-2020, 09:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2020, 12:21 AM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ]No one said they weren't there. Yeah they were there fighting when ISIS first appeared, but half the country was lost under their support and weak Iraqi leadership. The tide didn't turn until the US lead coalition arrived on the scene and took the war over.
So it's safe to say the ones who actually beat ISIS in Iraq are the greatest contributor to the war against ISIS.
You have your timeline confused a bit. The situation has always been fluid. Each unit has different loyalties. Some units took commands from the US for a while even though their main loyalty is with Khamenei. Everything was simple so long as US and Iranian interests aligned. Now things are less simple. Regardless of who actually contributed more to the war effort, ordinary Iraqis get a big say in who gets to stay.
I don't think you are in any position to call someone else confused on this subject.
The fact remains the US has done more to fight ISIS than Iran which is the whole premise of the discussion.
When the Iranian backed militias renew there insurgency campaign against the Iraqi government, I think there is little doubt as to who the Iraqis will want to stay.
Somebody should tell Trump you don't get to take the buildings with you.
US Army Tells Iraq It Is Preparing To "Move Out" Out Of "Respect For Sovereignty"
Could the Iraq war actually be ending?
(01-06-2020, 01:09 PM)Predator Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2020, 09:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You have your timeline confused a bit. The situation has always been fluid. Each unit has different loyalties. Some units took commands from the US for a while even though their main loyalty is with Khamenei. Everything was simple so long as US and Iranian interests aligned. Now things are less simple. Regardless of who actually contributed more to the war effort, ordinary Iraqis get a big say in who gets to stay.
I don't think you are in any position to call someone else confused on this subject.
The fact remains the US has done more to fight ISIS than Iran which is the whole premise of the discussion.
When the Iranian backed militias renew there insurgency campaign against the Iraqi government, I think there is little doubt as to who the Iraqis will want to stay.
It doesn't matter if I believe the US did more than Iran or If you believe the US did more than Iran.
At this stage all that matters is if the Iraqi leadership believes they need us or not.
They will make their decision based on that belief.
They will end up regretting their decision if their beliefs are wrong.
They are unlikely to regret their decision if their beliefs are correct.
Pretty sure you're wrong about that.
(01-07-2020, 04:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2020, 03:45 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Not really true. They were at one time adopting the western culture (specifically Iran) before a hostile regime took the country over. The people don't "cling" to a religion, rather a certain religion is forced upon them.
Teheran had discos and girls in miniskirts. The shah focused his money and attention there. The other areas weren't "adopting" anything, they didn't have the money. They were told by the Shah that if they didn't follow his lead (Western), they would be under Soviet (Eastern) domination instead, and that would be worse. Towards the end, the Shah could point east to Afghanistan and show his people how bad things would be with Soviets in charge. Remember, a lot of the elite in Afghanistan speaks Persian. Iranians heard some of that first hand.
But the Ayatollahs, by the mid 1970s, were getting a lot of traction with a slogan, "Not west! Not east! Islamic Republic!"
So a religious revival started in the smaller cities based on this slogan and it reached the capital.
Somewhat true, but has nothing to do with the premise of this thread. The U.S. didn't kill the "second in command" and did not "provoke a war" with Iran. We eliminated a terrorist that not only orchestrated an attack on our embassy in Iraq, but also attacked ships in the Persian Gulf. There is also intelligence that indicates that he was planning further attacks against us and our interests.
Any way that you and your democrat party want to spin it, it was the right thing to do.
(01-07-2020, 05:16 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2020, 04:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Teheran had discos and girls in miniskirts. The shah focused his money and attention there. The other areas weren't "adopting" anything, they didn't have the money. They were told by the Shah that if they didn't follow his lead (Western), they would be under Soviet (Eastern) domination instead, and that would be worse. Towards the end, the Shah could point east to Afghanistan and show his people how bad things would be with Soviets in charge. Remember, a lot of the elite in Afghanistan speaks Persian. Iranians heard some of that first hand.
But the Ayatollahs, by the mid 1970s, were getting a lot of traction with a slogan, "Not west! Not east! Islamic Republic!"
So a religious revival started in the smaller cities based on this slogan and it reached the capital.
Somewhat true, but has nothing to do with the premise of this thread. The U.S. didn't kill the "second in command" and did not "provoke a war" with Iran. We eliminated a terrorist that not only orchestrated an attack on our embassy in Iraq, but also attacked ships in the Persian Gulf. There is also intelligence that indicates that he was planning further attacks against us and our interests.
Any way that you and your democrat party want to spin it, it was the right thing to do.
He was at least the 2nd most powerful figure in Iran. You are aware Americas activities in the middle East is viewed as terrorism by Iran and others right? Occupying foreign land and killing civilians is worthy of response
Welp...... There goes Their Country......
We got B-52 Bombers in range.....
Carpet Bomb that kitty litter box of a country
Well. Here's to another foolish War for innocent people to die on both sides while some fat cat enriches his pockets further.
Congratulations I guess.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
The drones are already there. More are on the way. Ants under a magnifying glass.
Invest in Boeing I guess?
I don't think Trump wants to invade Iran, so we'll probably see a few missiles back-and-forth.
(01-07-2020, 05:16 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-07-2020, 04:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Teheran had discos and girls in miniskirts. The shah focused his money and attention there. The other areas weren't "adopting" anything, they didn't have the money. They were told by the Shah that if they didn't follow his lead (Western), they would be under Soviet (Eastern) domination instead, and that would be worse. Towards the end, the Shah could point east to Afghanistan and show his people how bad things would be with Soviets in charge. Remember, a lot of the elite in Afghanistan speaks Persian. Iranians heard some of that first hand.
But the Ayatollahs, by the mid 1970s, were getting a lot of traction with a slogan, "Not west! Not east! Islamic Republic!"
So a religious revival started in the smaller cities based on this slogan and it reached the capital.
Somewhat true, but has nothing to do with the premise of this thread. The U.S. didn't kill the "second in command" and did not "provoke a war" with Iran. We eliminated a terrorist that not only orchestrated an attack on our embassy in Iraq, but also attacked ships in the Persian Gulf. There is also intelligence that indicates that he was planning further attacks against us and our interests.
Any way that you and your democrat party want to spin it, it was the right thing to do.
I agree that he was a terrorist..
He was also a state leader.
And they don't believe he was a terrorist
They think we're the terrorists.
I am concerned they might kill some of our diplomats.
Just like we never eliminated the Taliban by force, we will never eliminate the Islamic Republic by force.
I hope this conflict results in Iranian troops butting out where the majority doesn't want them. That they butt out of Lebanon and Yemen and Syria. And I hope we return the favor and dial back our costly interference in this region.
(01-07-2020, 08:42 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Invest in Boeing I guess?
I don't think Trump wants to invade Iran, so we'll probably see a few missiles back-and-forth.
Also referred to as "a little noise" by Pompeo, who somehow can't stop the chucks when talking about serious things like people dying and destroying cultural sites.
Missiles fired into a US airbase in the Middle East. I’d like to again thank the boomers, this time for solving global warming by bringing on nuclear winter.
(01-07-2020, 09:19 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]Missiles fired into a US airbase in the Middle East. I’d like to again thank the boomers, this time for solving global warming by bringing on nuclear winter.
It won't come to that, we have the ability to wipe out every military installation in Iran within 30 minutes
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13