• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Live updates: Iran launches missile attack on airbase in Iraq housing US troops

Zefah

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2007
35,091
2,399
1,475
Obviously I don't literally wish for a war, but people take it that way anyway.

Nothing new though, that's the internet. Lol
I only scanned your posts, but you seemed to be passionately arguing that America needs to be humbled by losing in a war... which sure gave me the impression that you were hoping for one (as long as America came out the loser). Figurative expression or not, your posts were some ugly and immature bullshit if you ask me.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: bucyou

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,586
1,432
585
www.kickstarter.com
There is a chance we don't go to war. Exceedingly slim. But that's what hope is for, if hope has a purpose at all.
Retaliation doesn't necessarily mean war.

See: subsaharan Africa which the USA has mostly stayed out of in terms of large-scale military conflicts.
That media propaganda sure got you fooled.

The US BTW has a great deal, maybe to many, bases surrounding Iran near it's borders in almost every direction which is kind of funny when you look at them on a map.
 

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,586
1,432
585
www.kickstarter.com
Iran's hands aren't clean in that area, but if you go back a little bit further in history, it's the USA's (and UK's) fault that they ended up that way.

I mean this only really works if you ignore what Iran was doing before the 50's. At best you had a guy that may be scared by intimidation and didn't want to directly confront the UN, but their actions were still pretty vicious.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
For the sake of argument, do you believe assassination is a valid peacekeeping measure for a civilized country to use against another?
Nope. Historically, it doesn't have a good track record of success, and I think the negative consequences outweigh the potential positives. Maybe all those people we're droning truly are bad people and killing them without due process saves the most lives. But we have no way to prove that. And maybe all it does is create more fanatical martyrs and give their sons and daughters reasons to continue their fight in the future.

What it definitely does do is waste money on an unclear objective.
 

Xenon

Member
Just like there is a direct line of cause and effect events from the US-Soviet involvement in Afghanistan to the formation of Al Qaeda, there is cause and effect chain of events from the USA's offensive action (that was not an official declaration of war nor was it an act of self defense in response to an attack) in Iraq to the entire clusterfuck the region is in now with ISIS, a failed Libyan state, and other nations like Syria, Somalia, and Yemen in peril, leading to a migrant crisis since everyone wants to GTFO of their blown up homes and neighborhoods.

So, if we're going to play the "what's worse?" game, I would rather have Saddam than ISIS/slave trades in Libya/migrant crisis/thousands of civilian casualties.

Oh yeah, I'd also want that $3 trillion back, as well as those 4,000 members of the US military still alive to see their families, and no PTSD for 20% of Iraq vets that contribute to the opioid crisis, among other things.


Trying to prevent wars by starting one is completely illogical. Especially considering the case against the threat of Saddam's regime was wayyy overblown.

Okay let's play this game. If we never engaged in proxy wars with the USSR the world landscape would look completely different right now. Had they gained control in the Middle East they would have never have fallen and would have most likely won the Cold War. Again this is a world problem that we were forced into.

I never said that the 2nd Iraq War was a good idea nor did I say I would do it over again or belittle the cost lives lost and the money paid for it. Just that now we only have a single state to worry about instead of two. This is especially true considering these two were in direct conflict with each other.

But I will add that our biggest failure in the Middle East was done by George senior for not completing the initial battle and taking out Saddam then.
 
Last edited:

Doczu

Member
Aug 17, 2012
2,726
912
700
Poland
It is easy to sit back and armchair command a military 75 years after hostilities ended. The goal was to prevent American boys from dying. It was the right call because it ended the war decisively.

Had we just threatened them with an offshore nuke, they might not have called that bluff. We or the Russians (or both) would have invaded, and we would likely not have the Japan we do today because of it.
Also let's not forget that the nuke was a deterrent agains the commies. Stalin was BTFOd and feared US had more of them and that stopped them from showing the middle finger and rolling through the rest of Europe
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
I never said that the Iraq War was a good idea nor did I say I would do it over again or belittle the cost lives lost and the money paid for it.
Neither did I imply you said that. I was directly addressing your argument.

You said:

I think that the region is more stable with Saddam Hussein and his regime gone.
Now the country is a mess but it still lacks the organization and strong of a military being controlled by a fascist dictator. It is simply not as influential as it once was.
And I laid out my case for why the region definitely is not more stable, and that we have a shitload of other, arguably worse problems now, because of it.
 

Xenon

Member
Neither did I imply you said that. I was directly addressing your argument.

You said:




And I laid out my case for why the region definitely is not more stable, and that we have a shitload of other, arguably worse problems now, because of it.

But this is all under the assumption that everything would be fine and those things would not have happened if we didn't overthrow Iraq. You also have to remember that Iraq was much stronger than Iran back then.
Imbalance of Power (1980–1987)IraqIran
Tanks in 19802,7001,740 (500 operable)
Tanks in 19874,500+1,000
Fighter aircraft in 1980332445 (~100 operable)
Fighter aircraft in 1987500+65 (serviceable)
Helicopters in 198040500
Helicopters in 198715060
Artillery in 19801,0001,000+ (300 operable)
Artillery in 19874,000+1,000+


Saddam engage in chemical weapon Warfare. This idea that everything would have been just fine if we didn't get involved is pure speculation. You have no idea of the same terrorist groups might have came out of the same proxy wars continuing on. Part of the reason these groups popped up was due to the internet and connectivity and the ability to form cells easily.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
This idea that everything would have been just fine if we didn't get involved is pure speculation.
So is the idea that everything wouldn't have been fine if we didn't get involved. Your speculation is further invalidated because of the misinformation our government fed us, intentional or not, regarding weapons of mass destruction that further hyped up the threat without any leg to stand on. The credibility for the the source of your speculation is diminished.

Compare that to what actually happened in the aftermath, and how much of the region is a complete disaster because of our actions and that it also spawned an arguably even worse enemy than Saddam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scopa

Xenon

Member
So is the idea that everything wouldn't have been fine if we didn't get involved. Your speculation is further invalidated because of the misinformation our government fed us, intentional or not, regarding weapons of mass destruction that further hyped up the threat without any leg to stand on. The credibility for the the source of your speculation is diminished.

Compare that to what actually happened in the aftermath, and how much of the region is a complete disaster because of our actions and that it also spawned an arguably even worse enemy than Saddam.
Compared to Iraq attacking another country and firing missiles into Israel? Compared to using actual chemical weapons on its enemies? We can barely handle one Rogue state in the Middle East as it is. You think we could have handled two. We're just going to have to disagree here
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
Compared to Iraq attacking another country and firing missiles into Israel?
Yes, I prefer Iraq MAYBE attacking another country and MAYBE firing missiles into Israel vs ISIS ACTUALLY being formed, and 4 thousand US soldiers ACTUALLY dying with many more ACTUALLY injured, and trillions of dollars ACTUALLY wasted that could have been spent on jobs programs or health programs or going to Mars, and hundreds and thousands of civillians ACTUALLY killed, and many more displaced which leads to further conflict in the region and an ACTUAL migrant crisis that is fucking up Europe right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scopa and zenspider

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
10,297
4,692
680
My guess of how today will play out;

US killed old cunty bollocks

Iran fired two missiles at sparsely populated US installations, where no one got hurt, so as to not look like they are just going to roll over and take it, to their citizens and neighbours.

US will reply - right you've had your fun, stop acting up or you're fucked

Iran... well you started it...

And it'll be business as usual.
Who wants the lottery numbers?
 

Xenon

Member
Yes, I prefer Iraq MAYBE attacking another country and MAYBE firing missiles into Israel vs ISIS ACTUALLY being formed, and 4 thousand US soldiers ACTUALLY dying with many more ACTUALLY injured, and trillions of dollars ACTUALLY wasted that could have been spent on jobs programs or health programs or going to Mars, and hundreds and thousands of civillians ACTUALLY killed, and many more displaced which leads to further conflict in the region and an ACTUAL migrant crisis that is fucking up Europe right now.
You do realize that Iran is directly responsible for said migrant crisis?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
You do realize that Iran is directly responsible for said migrant crisis?
You do realize that the USA bombing the shit out of countries and destroying their homes and ruining economies forcing residents to flee to safer shores does the same thing?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
I mean this only really works if you ignore what Iran was doing before the 50's. At best you had a guy that may be scared by intimidation and didn't want to directly confront the UN, but their actions were still pretty vicious.
You mean the Iran that was not yet taken over by theocratic fanatics who liked to shout "Death to America"?


 
  • Like
Reactions: brohmbel

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
6,394
5,789
800
  • LOL
Reactions: cryptoadam

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
8,984
11,550
955
Oh no, oh no, oh no. Judging from the headline alone, it sounds like Israel finally built the death star. This is all our fault for supporting them. A damn death star! Can you even believe it?
Viral marketing for Rise of Skywalker ???
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFire

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,948
4,320
775
They didn't surrender after the first one, mate, and actually a fraction of the military wanted to overthrow the emperor and keep going after the second one.

There were only 3 days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
One could have demonstrated overwhelming power without killing innocent civilians.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,247
9,111
910
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,586
1,432
585
www.kickstarter.com
This copout gets so overused, I almost want to snap my entire Blu Ray collection in half.

Not only does it seem you do not know what a cop-out is, but think you can intimidate me with an action that actually benefits your own health???? Sure, go ahead. You'll live longer I guess, so bad.

It's like threatening me by saying you won't eat any transfats.


You mean the Iran that was not yet taken over by theocratic fanatics who liked to shout "Death to America"?


And there are photos of other areas that don't look like that, selective footage doesn't mean anything, Iran was still a vicious country before the 50's.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

FreedomGate

Mental Gymnastics 🥇Gold Medalist🥇
Oct 10, 2018
2,586
1,432
585
www.kickstarter.com
Compared to what? In what context? This statement adds nothing to the conversation.
No your statement does;t, the context of the original poster was about the sate of Iran and it's behavior, it was almost just as dangerous and vicious back then as it is now. You're the one trying to act like Iran was paradise before the 50's which just isn't true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bolivar687

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
No your statement does;t,
"No U" lol
the context of the original poster was about the sate of Iran and it's behavior,
Yes, I know that. And then I responded to him by expanding that context to include the American and British actions that lead to that.
it was almost just as dangerous and vicious back then as it is now. You're the one trying to act like Iran was paradise before the 50's which just isn't true.
I'm stating the fact that back then, it was more or less its own independent sovereign nation. It wasn't an Islamic theocracy with their slogan being "Death to America". Was it?
 
  • Fire
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
2,133
1,902
545
Last night I was hearing casualties. Now I'm hearing zero casualties, and Iran bypassed a US base to hit that one. It's looking like more WWE shit.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: AFreekinKing

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,839
19,567
855

Very interesting.

Carl interviews a Canadian Iranian who grew up in Tehran, is ex-Muslim, and hates Trump and thinks he's a war criminal. Carl mostly just asks for clarification here and there, it's mainly the interviewee presenting his perspective - which is essentially supportive of Trump across this entire spectacle. Lots of interesting tidbits for those of us not extrmelymwell versed in Iranian politics, goals, proxy fighters, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfur

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,266
38,952
1,170

Two rockets crashed late Wednesday into the Iraqi capital's Green Zone, the high-security enclave where foreign embassies including the US mission are based, security sources told AFP.

The attack came nearly 24 hours after Tehran launched ballistic missiles at Iraqi bases housing American and other coalition forces in retaliation for the US killing top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

Just before midnight, AFP's correspondents in Baghdad heard two loud blasts followed by the wailing security sirens of the Green Zone.
 
Last edited:

brohmbel

Member
May 12, 2009
678
229
830
  • Like
Reactions: Rentahamster

Xenon

Member
BTW that was bullshit too.

Well there you go, all wrapped up in a 13 minute video. Too bad Jimmy Dore wasnt commander in chief. =P

The decision to go in was infinitely more complicated than what this guy saying I don't even remember the little girl. But the first attack we actually had support of the Iraqi people at least more than the second that's for sure. Because I think those people got gassed by Saddam.

Not that I don't enjoy the argument but I'm going to have to agree to disagree here. Finding the single cause of the problems in the Middle East is like finding a needle in a needlestack. Again I'm not claiming that we should have done it. I just think that the world's better off without Saddam running Iraq.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
38,381
5,210
1,575
Best Coast
The decision to go in was infinitely more complicated than what this guy saying I don't even remember the little girl. But the first attack we actually had support of the Iraqi people at least more than the second that's for sure.
We did not have the support of the Iraqi people. The Kurds and the Shia who were oppressed by Saddam didn't like him, but that doesn't mean there was overwhelming support for a foreign power to overthrow Saddamn for them. If anything, they had to be encouraged to rise up once the USA finally got the ball rolling, only for us to peace out and leave Saddam in place for him to oppress them again, this time with a vengeance.
Because I think those people got gassed by Saddam.
Yeah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_genocide#The_campaign

So in order to punish Saddam for killing Iraqis, the USA comes in and kills Iraqis. Just, different Iraqis. Yeah, that sure showed him.

Finding the single cause of the problems in the Middle East is like finding a needle in a needlestack.
And I'm pointing out how America's expensive (in terms of dollars and American lives) meddling hasn't helped, and probably made things worse.
Again I'm not claiming that we should have done it.
You keep saying this and I keep pointing out to you that that's not the argument I'm addressing. I'm specifically talking about your assertion that the region is more stable with Saddam gone. I showed how it is not.

Maybe if Saddam just blinked out of existence, or if there was a revolution that overthrew Saddam and replaced him with a form of government that was peaceful, then yes, I might agree. But that is an alternate reality that didn't happen. We have do deal with actual history and the actual consequences of our actions.
I just think that the world's better off without Saddam running Iraq.
And still yet you don't consider opportunity cost and unintended consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudelord

jonnyp

Member
Jan 12, 2008
2,458
558
1,090
There were only 3 days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
One could have demonstrated overwhelming power without killing innocent civilians.
No. They would not have surrendered. So what if there were only 3 days, why would they need more than 3 hours to realize they should surrender after that? They almost didn't even after the second one.

Look, moral posturing is easy but please read history and understand Japanese culture before doing so.

Unlike most of you, I have lived and worked in different parts of Asia for almost 7 years now - I know very well why the Japanese are still hated in Asia because of the horrific war crimes they commited. They were butchering people left right and center - how long would you tolerate what they were doing in cities like Nanjing? Read the book the Rape of Nanking to truly understand what atrocities were going on.

I have been to the nuclear bomb museum in Hiroshima (yes, it was a sad and sobering experience). but it's really silly to think that things could have been done another way that would have spared more people. Had they invaded on the ground, millions of people would have lost their lives. Also silly to say that nuclear bombs somehow is much worse than the bombing campaign of say cities like Dresden etc. It was war and the Nazis and the Japanese were commiting crimes against humanity on a scale previously unknown known to man.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,796
40,261
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Not sure if it got posted, but flight list for the plane that crashed in Tehran yesterday:


Internet sleuths as of yet have not uncovered anything tinfoil-hat worthy but the night is still young.