You get the timing wrong. He assassinated Soleimani after he withdrawn from attacking Iran, to have last word and to placate republican warhawks. There was no risk of war then already unless Iran would openly attack USA which they wouldn't did.
Again read my post slowly and read about the assassination itself. That attack was a bone thrown to the rep warhawks and a consolation prize to placate them after they were denied the war with Iran. It wasn't attack on Iran itself, it wasn't even in Iran, and Iran also didn't treated it like the act of war (note they did also not really declared war after multiple assassinations of Iranian offcials on Iranian soil by Isn'treal, and their answer might be the same since every now and then "someone" do bomb US bases in Iraq and Syria).
You don't get to do that. You don't get to assassinate the commander of Iran's armed forces while he's on a diplomatic mission and then say 'oopsies, this is just a consolation prize as we avoid war with Iran'. That's nonsensical and also revisionist. Trump looked like shit for days after that attack while the iran war caucus was ecstatic precisely because of how much closer to war the entire region got. Iran did in fact treat this as an attack, which is why retaliations had to be arranged.
Trump and Bolton didn't step back away from war. They incited it. It was Iran who chose to deescalate when they called the Americans and arranged for face saving measures instead of starting the war we see today.
Iran and the rest of the resistance have been in a hybrid war against the US and Israel for decades. The fact that Israel can also kill whoever they want and bomb whoever they want is not an indication that peace reigns or that doves reign supreme. It's an indication that the NATO powers have been able to wage war with impunity. Nothing more, nothing less.
You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to assassinate the commander of Iran’s armed forces while he’s on a diplomatic mission and then say ‘oopsies, this is just a consolation prize as we avoid war with Iran’.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet who just geared up for war to 11:59 and then abruptly stopped because the target proven they can defend themseleves. Also you speak as if USA ever gave a shit about unnecessary detalis like diplomacy or international opinion. For fucks sake foreign secretary back then was Pompeo, possibly the worst diplomat i've ever seen (at least outside Isnt'real). For him and Trump their party bonzos opinion is 1000 times more valuable than everyone, and they were sorely disappointed no blood has flown so they get at least one head.
Trump looked like shit for days after that attack while the iran war caucus was ecstatic precisely because of how much closer to war the entire region got
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same, but most likely got advised by Pentagon to not do it in last minute when Iranian air defense proven they were much superior to anything US expected when Iran shot down their best stealth drone with old 60's Soviet missile just with more modern locally produced radar & guidance system. THIS stopped the war, nothing else. This was 20 june 2019, US backed from war soon after and Soleimani was murdered 3 january 2020.
Trump and Bolton didn’t step back away from war. They incited it.
They incited war which didn't happened? Did USA bombed Iran? Invaded it? War did started? No. So while they did pushed for it, they backed down, or more accurately Trump did, Bolton was sacked (10 september 2019, after the dron shot down but before Soleimani murder) precisely because he still pushed for it when Trump and the administration decided to back down.
It was Iran who chose to deesclate when they called the Americans and arranged for face saving measures instead of starting the war we see today.
Lol fucking lmao this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them". The only way you can do it is to show force, which is precisely what they did (or have nukes like DPRK). Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"? because there surely wasn't any other "success" of the US back then in the region.
Iran did in fact treat this as an attack, which is why retaliations had to be arranged.
yes they did, but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation and surely didn't go to war with US. They added it to the book but regardless what US did they wouldn't escalate to war just after they avoid war just to avenge one man, funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol. Also name that retaliation - what did they do, precisely, and how it even fits in you subsequent words about Iran deescalating.
Iran and the rest of the resistance have been in a hybrid war against the US and Israel for decades. The fact that Israel can also kill whoever they want and bomb whoever they want is not an indication that peace reigns or that doves reign supreme.
Again jesse what the fuck are you just strawmanning me into here, "peace reigns or that doves reign supreme"??? Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Reality. You don't get to attack a country and pretend that's de-escalation. What you're describing is absolute and fucking utter nonsense that has no relationship with reality, basic analysis or the human ability to string two words together.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet
The kind to attack the commander in chief of Iran while he's on a diplomatic mission and then pretend that's de-escalation? No wait, you're the one saying that.
who just geared up for war
Yes, anyone with a pair of functioning eyes can look at a map and realize the United States is perpetually ready to invade Iran. Hence their ability to continuously wage hybrid war against 5 different countries in the region, including Iran.
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same
Ah, yes. Trump wanted a war. Which is why he de-escalated by attacking the country!
this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them".
Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who reads the news mega can cite dozens of instances where de-escalation was achieved by calling the other side and letting them know where bombings. Case in point, when the United States attacked Iran the Iranians called the US, told them which bases they'd bomb and those bases were promptly prepared for the attack.
Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"?
See above for the actual events I was referring to. You lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand, which is why you just asked such an asinine question.
but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation
See above once again in case you ignored my previous advice. The fact that you can even make such a statement is another instance of you lacking the basic knowledge of the situation at hand. Iran and the iraqi resistance attacked US bases in Iraq as retaliation for the US's attack on Iran. That is what happened.
and surely didn't go to war with US
Yes, it was Iran who chose to de-escalate by letting the pentagon know where and how the retaliation would occur. The US has continued to wage hybrid and actual war against Iran nonetheless.
funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol.
No. Revisionist isn't just a word that exists within your terminally online circles. It's an actual word used in sociology and history. The fact that you don't know two shits about what happened back then (see above) is what makes you an incompetent revisionist. The United States attacked Iran, killing its commander in chief. The fact of the matter is that the pro iran caucus believed that was it, that war would finally happen. That is one of the many things you've been incapable of remembering or ever knowing.
Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Oh I'm sorry, is the statement 'The United States de-escalated from war with Iran by killing its military commander in a diplomatic mission without any provocation' any less ridiculous than the implication that the US was appeasing peace doves when IT FUCKING KILLED THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF IRAN IN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION.
Reality. You don’t get to attack a country and pretend that’s de-escalation.
I didn't even want to read rest of your inane drivel after this, i explained it to you at least twice but you seem to live in alternate reality where the war did happened.
Since i'm on grad and we don't have this emoji, treat this as PPB and move along.
I'm going to write a short insult on the fact that you wrote all that with elaborate meticulous clarity that I refuse to give a flying fuck about because I'm fat, lazy, single and about to jack-off to some kinky porn. Sorry, man but it means I don't care about who's right and who's wrong when I can't exert the will to care about such status. Just because I have only ever subscribed to popular noose articles and media doesn't mean I'm nearly as intelligent as I'm pretending to be.
You get the timing wrong. He assassinated Soleimani after he withdrawn from attacking Iran, to have last word and to placate republican warhawks. There was no risk of war then already unless Iran would openly attack USA which they wouldn't did.
He attacked Iran right after he withdrew from attacking Iran? That makes no sense.
Again read my post slowly and read about the assassination itself. That attack was a bone thrown to the rep warhawks and a consolation prize to placate them after they were denied the war with Iran. It wasn't attack on Iran itself, it wasn't even in Iran, and Iran also didn't treated it like the act of war (note they did also not really declared war after multiple assassinations of Iranian offcials on Iranian soil by Isn'treal, and their answer might be the same since every now and then "someone" do bomb US bases in Iraq and Syria).
You don't get to do that. You don't get to assassinate the commander of Iran's armed forces while he's on a diplomatic mission and then say 'oopsies, this is just a consolation prize as we avoid war with Iran'. That's nonsensical and also revisionist. Trump looked like shit for days after that attack while the iran war caucus was ecstatic precisely because of how much closer to war the entire region got. Iran did in fact treat this as an attack, which is why retaliations had to be arranged.
Trump and Bolton didn't step back away from war. They incited it. It was Iran who chose to deescalate when they called the Americans and arranged for face saving measures instead of starting the war we see today.
Iran and the rest of the resistance have been in a hybrid war against the US and Israel for decades. The fact that Israel can also kill whoever they want and bomb whoever they want is not an indication that peace reigns or that doves reign supreme. It's an indication that the NATO powers have been able to wage war with impunity. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jess wtf are you even talking about.
Unless you are the most fucking unhinged empire on planet who just geared up for war to 11:59 and then abruptly stopped because the target proven they can defend themseleves. Also you speak as if USA ever gave a shit about unnecessary detalis like diplomacy or international opinion. For fucks sake foreign secretary back then was Pompeo, possibly the worst diplomat i've ever seen (at least outside Isnt'real). For him and Trump their party bonzos opinion is 1000 times more valuable than everyone, and they were sorely disappointed no blood has flown so they get at least one head.
Like no shit sure he was, he wanted it just the same, but most likely got advised by Pentagon to not do it in last minute when Iranian air defense proven they were much superior to anything US expected when Iran shot down their best stealth drone with old 60's Soviet missile just with more modern locally produced radar & guidance system. THIS stopped the war, nothing else. This was 20 june 2019, US backed from war soon after and Soleimani was murdered 3 january 2020.
They incited war which didn't happened? Did USA bombed Iran? Invaded it? War did started? No. So while they did pushed for it, they backed down, or more accurately Trump did, Bolton was sacked (10 september 2019, after the dron shot down but before Soleimani murder) precisely because he still pushed for it when Trump and the administration decided to back down.
Lol fucking lmao this would be first time in history when the potential target of US manage to avoid being attacked by "calling them". The only way you can do it is to show force, which is precisely what they did (or have nukes like DPRK). Also, did you just suggested that Soleimani's death was Iran giving him up so the US can "save face"? because there surely wasn't any other "success" of the US back then in the region.
yes they did, but they didn't openly attacked US in retaliation and surely didn't go to war with US. They added it to the book but regardless what US did they wouldn't escalate to war just after they avoid war just to avenge one man, funnily of you to engage in such vulgar great man theory after calling me "revisionist" lol. Also name that retaliation - what did they do, precisely, and how it even fits in you subsequent words about Iran deescalating.
Again jesse what the fuck are you just strawmanning me into here, "peace reigns or that doves reign supreme"??? Lol where i did ever said that lol.
Reality. You don't get to attack a country and pretend that's de-escalation. What you're describing is absolute and fucking utter nonsense that has no relationship with reality, basic analysis or the human ability to string two words together.
The kind to attack the commander in chief of Iran while he's on a diplomatic mission and then pretend that's de-escalation? No wait, you're the one saying that.
Yes, anyone with a pair of functioning eyes can look at a map and realize the United States is perpetually ready to invade Iran. Hence their ability to continuously wage hybrid war against 5 different countries in the region, including Iran.
Ah, yes. Trump wanted a war. Which is why he de-escalated by attacking the country!
Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who reads the news mega can cite dozens of instances where de-escalation was achieved by calling the other side and letting them know where bombings. Case in point, when the United States attacked Iran the Iranians called the US, told them which bases they'd bomb and those bases were promptly prepared for the attack.
See above for the actual events I was referring to. You lack basic knowledge of the facts at hand, which is why you just asked such an asinine question.
See above once again in case you ignored my previous advice. The fact that you can even make such a statement is another instance of you lacking the basic knowledge of the situation at hand. Iran and the iraqi resistance attacked US bases in Iraq as retaliation for the US's attack on Iran. That is what happened.
Yes, it was Iran who chose to de-escalate by letting the pentagon know where and how the retaliation would occur. The US has continued to wage hybrid and actual war against Iran nonetheless.
No. Revisionist isn't just a word that exists within your terminally online circles. It's an actual word used in sociology and history. The fact that you don't know two shits about what happened back then (see above) is what makes you an incompetent revisionist. The United States attacked Iran, killing its commander in chief. The fact of the matter is that the pro iran caucus believed that was it, that war would finally happen. That is one of the many things you've been incapable of remembering or ever knowing.
Oh I'm sorry, is the statement 'The United States de-escalated from war with Iran by killing its military commander in a diplomatic mission without any provocation' any less ridiculous than the implication that the US was appeasing peace doves when IT FUCKING KILLED THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF IRAN IN A DIPLOMATIC MISSION.
I didn't even want to read rest of your inane drivel after this, i explained it to you at least twice but you seem to live in alternate reality where the war did happened.
Since i'm on grad and we don't have this emoji, treat this as PPB and move along.
the killing (which is an aggressive action)
of the iranian military commander (very important person)
while they are on a diplomatic mission (big no no to kill someone here)
is
not (as in, the negative)
deescalation from war (as in, choosing to not wage war)
I'm going to write a short insult on the fact that you wrote all that with elaborate meticulous clarity that I refuse to give a flying fuck about because I'm fat, lazy, single and about to jack-off to some kinky porn. Sorry, man but it means I don't care about who's right and who's wrong when I can't exert the will to care about such status. Just because I have only ever subscribed to popular noose articles and media doesn't mean I'm nearly as intelligent as I'm pretending to be.