Californication

Damnit. I was watching an auction for the last three days and forgot to bid at the last few minutes. Ibara for the PS2 went for $137 plus $4 shipping. I don't have any where else to cry so

I think you're right. I don't think Iran wants a direct confrontation, but they are going to f!$# with us behind the scenes. Having the restraint to not gonfurther than they did was highly intelligent. They must be very politically savy. Did you hear that Iran is one of the greatest beneficiarys of the war in Iraq. They have somehow managed to take advange of the chaos we've created over there to increase their power in the region.

I think it's irrelevant. I don't think Iran is holding it's breath waiting for Israel, the UK, or most of the other countrys that obey the ridiculous sanctions against them to side with them. Iran has Russia and China in its corner, more or less, and a downed plane is like spilled milk to these people.

If I am walking down the street and some guy says give me your money this a robbery, and I say please don't rob me and I break two of my fingers, how does that have any effect on whether the guy chooses to rob me.

The whole premise does not make sense. They did not want an open, direct war. Iran was not bargaining for anything. They were asking not to be attacked which is a sovereign right. The U.S. said they wanted to go to war. The U.S. looked for provacation. If they shot down their own plane it would have to have an effect in addition to the firing of the missiles to make the U.S. want to walk away. I don't know how many different ways I have to say this. The U.S. has to be the one to walk away. They are the only party asking for open direct violence.

Different places I get my news. Honestly I was hoping other people could chime in because I think I've only heard him called a terrorist in this thread.

I wish that were true. I have heard all of these things said about the same person, Soleimani.

Honestly, I would like clarification on who this guy is. Conservatives are talking about him like he is Osama Bin Laden and we had to take him out before he shot lasers out of his eyes, across the ocean, to kill Americans in the U.S. We all know who Bin Laden was, who is this guy? I have heard a few things about him, but I am really not familiar with this guy idk which ones are true: 1. He got famous by using his forces to fight one of the same terrorist groups the U.S. was fighting and won. Idk which terrorist group. 2. He was on a peace mission at the time he was murdered. He was on his way to try and calm tensions between Saudi Arabia and some other country I can't remember. 3. He tortured terrorists and did things the U.S. couldn't do. 4. He is a terrorist. 5. Iran being on the different side of conflicts than the U.S. he had some hand in directing the militarys/militia/whatever that were fighting against the U.S./U.S. proxies in country's I am not sure of. 6. He was potentially in line to be the next leader of thecountry. 7. He was a commander of forces in Iraq which is justified because they u.s. put the region into chaos by killing saddam hussein. Several of the regional powers fought indirectly with the u.s. in a power struggle to fill the vacumm left in the wake of the U.S. attacking Iraq.

I'm still not understanding your point. You said that Iran was in a position where they could de-escalate because someone screwed up and shot down a plane. Iran was no longer in a position where they had to respond when the plane went down. Iran was in a position after the general was killed that they needed to retaliate, their response was pretty calm, they gave a warning, fired missiles, and didn't hurt anyone. Firing the missiles was what Iran did to appease its public, while at the same time saying we want peace. We do not want war, but will retaliate if you attack us. You are saying they accidently shot down their own plane so now they changed their minds and are going to de-escalate. They already responded in a way they thought they could sell to the Iranian public. They are good. When the plane went down, it was the U.S.'s turn to respond. Second point, the U.S. looked weak by not stopping any missiles. You are saying this could have been an intentionally choice to simmer tensions. I agree, that yes technically, the U.S could have had the capabilities and chose not to defend. That would be a really smart move. It would also be a complete about face about the decisions the U.S. govt. made up until that point: a. they killed a general they had no reason killing - increasing aggression, b. After the guy was killed they responded in a way that continued to fuel the aggresive stance despite there being other options where both sides could save face.

As of yesterday Iran wasn't aggressive. You are saying that Iran could have simultaneously shot missiles at an Iraqi/U.S base to escalate tensions, then shoot down a plane, so only high levels government officals would know about it to de-escalate tensions? That wouldn't make it as a plot on 24. Not only does it sound cray, cray, but how does shooting down a plane deescalate tensions? And at the same time you don't believe the U.S. would shoot down incoming missiles although they have the capabilities? If this is about power dynamics alone why would the U.S. choose to look weak by allowing the missiles to strike them?

So. What does it matter?

It is hyperbolic since no one is taking credit for it and the official statement is that it was mechanical. We know the U.S. has killed someone, we know that Iran has fired missiles at a U.S. Iralqi base. These two facts alone are enough to reshape the regions geopolitics. Whether a plane was shot down is repetitive. If the plane was downed the facts we know would just be multiplied out.

Lol. So discussing something that is based on hypotheticals and unprovable is equivelant to discussing something based on facts? Which is more useful: Was it the Mafia that killed JFK? What were the effects of JFK's policy towards Cuba? Discussions have real world consenquences, especially for people like Donald Trump. While I don't think most of the conservatives that come in here will change their mind, I think that atleast giving them the other sides opinion that they would never hear otherwise has value to it.

Agreed. Also, discussing whether or not the plane went down by itself seems like a waste of time. Everything is hypothetical, and without more information no one will know the truth so why not worry about things we know are happening.

Like I said, this wasn't my opinion, this was the opinion of someone I listened to on Democracy Now this morning. It was a professor out of Tehran. Idk know how missile defenses function, but the logic seems reasonable. Whether or not the defenses were used and failed or were not used because it was unneccessary, I still think that Iran not killing anybody, is still a warning, and America would be looked at as the primary aggressor if they continue.

Iran attacked American/Iraqi bases and before they attacked, Iran called the Iraqi's and told them they were going to attack. Iran was sending a message. I heard one expert say the message was that every missile the Iranians fired hit its target. Meaning despite giving the Iraqi's notice of the missile strike the American/Iraqi missile defense system was able to stop ZERO missiles. I guess what I am trying to say is don't think Iran failed because nobody died. If someone dies the U.S. would have more talking points to escalated the attacks. This was a warning. Also, by Iran playing this slowly, if the U.S. continues to attack Iran, we look even worse as we continue to be the primary aggressor.

The new art is great. Hope you can find a place somewhere for the old one, I like him too.

I didn't mind because I wanted to play the game. The only thing that sucked was the very next day the game went on sale for $10 less. I had debated whether I should have ordered another new copy and return it with the receipt of my opened copy. In the end I decided ot wasn't worth the hassle and Valfaris is the first game I have paid full price for from GameStop since Black Ops 3 traumatized me.

The US spent trillions trying to remake the Middle East. Trump's strike may have undone it all - CNN https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/world/iran-analysis-amanpour-intl/index.html Here's a funny title. Did anyone know we fixed the middle east?

Ouch. That's a bad statement, I don't like it. I give him a little leeway since he was one of the few people that voted against the military increases and against the Iraq war so I beleieve him when he says he wants to end the wars, but I don't think that's a good statement. Thanks for finding that.

And I should also say that the reason that Trump is able to start a war over twitter is because Congress refuses over and over to do their job. Congress is supposed to say it's okay to go to war. And the reason Congress has abdicated their responsibility is because they don't want their vote taken. A lot of these Liberal Democrats are down for war and they would rather go to war without having to vote so it cannot be used against them in a future election. Look at the way these Liberal Democrats keep giving Trump his military budget. There's no fight, there is no argument, Trump says he wants 600 billion more and they sign it without fail.

I feel you, it should be implied, but it's not. When all these politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, are saying this was a bad guy, but Trump did it the wrong way, they are consenting to killing that guy. Agreeing that it was okay to kill him by default says you are okay with the repercussions of killing the guy. Bernie Sandersons isn't saying that nonsense.

I think maybe m308 is right about one thing. I think the Trump administration includes extra bs in its statements to get people to run in circles. When the media, repeats the bs points, and argue about the bs point, the liberal and the conservative voters don't get near the real issue. I mean look at the two of you. Tulpa and Mr. Wonderful, you guys are talking about cultural sites when the real problem is that we have no reason to go to war. People will die, American's will die, Iranian's will die, and you guys are okay with all the people getting murdered, but you have a problem if a museum gets damaged? Why are we attacking Iran ? That is the real question.

I haven't heard of him before and except for the Persians I know, I am sure no one I know has heard of him. Option 1- Kill random guy, potentially start war, wait for retaliation Option 2 - Keep peace by maintaining treaty. This administration has been trying to go to war with Iran for over a year. We talked about this last year on N/A. Now that they have created the reason to go to war, why would you guys accept their reasoning?

The problem is that the liberals and the conservatives are down to start another war for no reason. How do you think politicians do people favors? One way is to give a company billion dollar military contracts because they go unquestioned. That is why the liberals and the conservatives have no problem increasing the military budget each year or staring wars. They literally did this with Venezuela last year. When did Venezuela attack us after we didn't go to war with them?