Gulf War 2 - Electric Boogaloo

[shubla]

Firing semi accurate missiles at static targets does little compared to one of your top people getting ass blasted into giblets.

It's unlikely that this was their only method of getting revenge. For example, Iraq has ordered US troops to get out of their country.
They(Iran) don't want a full scale war, because lots of their citizens would die and their country would probably collapse.
US doesn't want full scale war because money and maybe elections.
If Iran killed (lots of) people there wouldn't be other option than to get their revenge etc. No one wants that! So instead, they focus on some other means of retaliation that doesn't force the enemy to respond with an attack.

[dafels]

USA has fucked up middle east because of their oil, killed thousands of civilians from airstrikes, destroyed entire cities, made hundreds of thousands homeless, helped to create niggers like Soleimani as a consequence of their actions, created a power vacuum where shits like ISIS can be born and pretending to be on the moral high ground there. Fuck the USA, if WW3 occurs, they deserve the war on their own home soil so they are punished for their actions. USA is the terrorist.

[jordancoles]

I just wanted a Haven patch this week

[MagicManICT]

And incomes the retaliatory strike: Iran fired on a US occupied base in Iraq today. I haven't looked at details yet as too busy doing other things, but saw at least a half dozen headlines a few minutes ago.

https://archive.md/H8f2s
Cross posted from CNN onto CBS; would take most of it with a grain of salt if they deviate from the topic. Low quality retaliation. Timothy McVeigh did more damage than this retaliation did. Hopefully they choose some better targets otherwise it seems they're all bark & no bite; just like they usually are. Firing semi accurate missiles at static targets does little compared to one of your top people getting ass blasted into giblets.

I read an article late that said of one of the attacks, two missiles were intercepted and destroyed, and a third landed without detonation... highly effective attack, I'd say. I just saw that Iran is stepping back and looking at a more diplomatic solution. (Maybe because they know they have no means of doing anything other than a guerrilla and terrorist war.)

As they say... freedom of speech ends when you cause harm to others with the words you use.

This is funny.

Well, in the US, at least, this is the line that has been drawn in the Supreme Court. Go into a crowded area, yell something that starts a panic and see where your rights are if someone gets injured. Why should someone writing editorials, when they influence people that can't understand the nuance into extreme violence, be treated any different? I believe some people have been successfully prosecuted when their actions are direct rather than indirect (via media channels, etc) for hate speech and such. (I could be completely off base here, so if I am, I'll gladly stand corrected.) I certainly don't support things like prison or suing them into bankruptcy should be the answer, but I believe all actions must be held accountable if they cause harm.

[Potjeh]

I'm pretty sure Iran didn't want to cause any real damage. They had to do something to save face, but they don't want to get into an actual war, so empty theatrics is the best bet.

[Jalpha]

As somebody interested in the truth; the propaganda war is a little frustrating. Media reports in Australia indicated that the strikes intentionally avoided causing casualties and instead focused on damaging and destroying hardware. Seeking to exploit the loophole which had previously seen Iran escape war after shooting down a USA drone. From what I know Australians were not part of the coalition forces present at either of the targeted airfields. Who can say what the truth really is.

[SumFaggotPlayTester]

It's unlikely that this was their only method of getting revenge. For example, Iraq has ordered US troops to get out of their country.
They(Iran) don't want a full scale war, because lots of their citizens would die and their country would probably collapse.
US doesn't want full scale war because money and maybe elections.
If Iran killed (lots of) people there wouldn't be other option than to get their revenge etc. No one wants that! So instead, they focus on some other means of retaliation that doesn't force the enemy to respond with an attack.

I can agree. The entire thing where they talked hard then did a little strike like this seems to be in line with action without any major actions taking place. One part that has come up, that seems to prove this, is that the Iranian Governing body contacted the Iraqi Governing body to tell them they where firing the missiles to begin with. This is looking more and more like a way to get rid of someone the Iranian oligarchs wanted gone in a safe manner ('Merica ass blasting him is better than the Iranians Epsteining him.). Though the reason the US does not want a war is mainly due to how massive the public backlash would be. The vast majority of people here, at least in my region, want out of that region.

The funny part is this would never have been an issue & Iran would be very similar to a first world nation if the US never coup'd it in the 70s and installed a dictator for that sweet sweet oil; a dictator which then got coup'd by the current religious fanatics. Oil which we now out produce these nations due to reserves we found state side.

I read an article late that said of one of the attacks, two missiles were intercepted and destroyed, and a third landed without detonation... highly effective attack, I'd say. I just saw that Iran is stepping back and looking at a more diplomatic solution. (Maybe because they know they have no means of doing anything other than a guerrilla and terrorist war.)

This is actually the funny part. They know if they want to damage the US, NATO, and other's who are neutral they don't need to kill US/NATO troops. When they flew a drone to damage a Saudi oil refinery it cost them less than this missile attack did. Arguably it caused more damage as well given it only took around $15,000USD for them to do. Much cheaper compared to most things. Though I agree on the diplomatic solution as this entire thing looks like a way to get rid of someone agreed upon by both sides. This is just the Iranian version of Trump bombing empty hangers on an airfield in Syria. Instead this time they get rid of a political up-comer who has some fanatical supporters.

Well, in the US, at least, this is the line that has been drawn in the Supreme Court. Go into a crowded area, yell something that starts a panic and see where your rights are if someone gets injured. Why should someone writing editorials, when they influence people that can't understand the nuance into extreme violence, be treated any different? I believe some people have been successfully prosecuted when their actions are direct rather than indirect (via media channels, etc) for hate speech and such. (I could be completely off base here, so if I am, I'll gladly stand corrected.) I certainly don't support things like prison or suing them into bankruptcy should be the answer, but I believe all actions must be held accountable if they cause harm.

Eh, limitations on causing a panic in a crowded area could be considered fine, but if used as a reason to go after editorials, especially when we have corporate media world wide sensationalizing every mundane thing, & common folk talking anywhere is where I'd disagree. I'd point to Count Dankula getting fined for making a joke out of his wife's dog, a pug (An abomination of a dug m8.), to react to commands such as gas the jews. Now, I don't know about you, but a dog bred to be a living abomination to be portrayed as a enthusiastic NatSoc is pretty funny. This might have taken place in the UK but can still be used as a good example of what could happen in the US.

[Burinn]

Name an Iranian attack within last 20 years where civilians died in Europe or America. I can name plenty or Wahhabi terrorists, and Saudi Arabia is behind all of those attacks.

A more apt comparison would be Wahhabi terror and Shiite terror, but whatever right? There were two foiled assassination attempts in 2018. I'm not making an argument that there isn't more Sunni-Wahhbi terror attacks in the world so let's not pretend that suggesting that is a reasonable response to what I said. If your response to Iranian state-sponsored terror is just going to be whataboutism it's clear you're not interested in having a discussion in good faith.

As somebody interested in the truth; the propaganda war is a little frustrating. Media reports in Australia indicated that the strikes intentionally avoided causing casualties and instead focused on damaging and destroying hardware. Seeking to exploit the loophole which had previously seen Iran escape war after shooting down a USA drone. From what I know Australians were not part of the coalition forces present at either of the targeted airfields. Who can say what the truth really is.

I think most people forget or don't remember just how bad the misinformation campaign was during the invasion of Iraq. Neither Iran nor the United States has any reason to be truthful to the public about what happens immediately after a military strike. The immediacy with which people were willing to accept "Yup, no one died." moments after the strikes as if there wasn't media blackouts on death tolls during the Iraq War was staggering.

The funny part is this would never have been an issue & Iran would be very similar to a first world nation if the US never coup'd it in the 70s and installed a dictator for that sweet sweet oil; a dictator which then got coup'd by the current religious fanatics. Oil which we now out produce these nations due to reserves we found state side.

Irrespective of the 1970's coup you can attribute what's going on to events as early as 2018. Had President Trump committed to deescalation, like the rest of the world had and still is, with the nuclear deal we never would have had increases in sanctions, downings of drones, or boat hijackings that we saw in 2019 leading up to this. There was entirely no evidence of Iran being non-compliant with the uranium enrichment rules prior to our withdrawal. With the frequency with which the President was lambasting Obama over how bad the deal was I'm hard pressed to believe US withdrawal was anything short of politicking for election within the US, ie having no merit within the scope of sane foreign policy. It should be a surprise to no one that we're where we are now after backing Iran into a corner with no way avenue for appeasement.

[Potjeh]

It's not about how much oil USA has, it's about making sure all international oil trade is done in dollars. That's why Gaddafi was killed, he wanted to sell oil for gold dinar instead of dollars. USA has to keep oil trade in dollars because that's the only thing keeping the dollar afloat, if other countries didn't need to buy dollars so they can buy oil the massive deficit USA has been running since Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard would finally catch up and USA would experience catastrophic inflation.

As for attacks on Saudi oil fields, I'm still not convinced that wasn't a false flag by Saudis to get USA to eliminate Iran for them.

And IDK about public opinion in the States being that much of a factor, I'm sure the pundits would be able to whip majority of the country into enough of a frenzy to support the invasion for a year or two, long enough for it to get pushed out of the limelight like the ongoing 19 year occupation of Afghanistan. Especially if CIA can whip up a convenient false flag attack.

[Burinn]

It's not about how much oil USA has, it's about making sure all international oil trade is done in dollars. That's why Gaddafi was killed, he wanted to sell oil for gold dinar instead of dollars. USA has to keep oil trade in dollars because that's the only thing keeping the dollar afloat, if other countries didn't need to buy dollars so they can buy oil the massive deficit USA has been running since Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard would finally catch up and USA would experience catastrophic inflation.

There isn't enough time in the world for me to describe just how shit I think the conspiracy is that the US needs to go to war with third world despots to maintain demand for the US dollar. Nixon didn't take us off the gold standard, he ended the Bretton-Woods System. We left the gold standard in 1933. You have no idea what you're talking about, how inflation works, or what a petrodollar is. Watch less youtube videos and read a political economy or macroeconomics textbook for your own sake seriously.