Iran: Massacre of protesters demands global diplomatic action to signal an end to imp

[chr0naut]

Is the only way to stop Iranian protestors from being killed, to drop bombs on them?

More than 100 Venezuelans and 33 Cubans died during Maduro's arrest and 7 US soldiers were injured, two critically.

It's trading wrong for wrong.

You'd think the great technological USA could be a bit more surgically precise.

And the theft of Venezuelan oil just leaves a bad stink that the US motivations aren't pure and good here, either.

[angelchemuel]

Is the only way to stop Iranian protestors from being killed, to drop bombs on them?

More than 100 Venezuelans and 33 Cubans died during Maduro's arrest and 7 US soldiers were injured, two critically.

It's trading wrong for wrong.

You'd think the great technological USA could be a bit more surgically precise.

And the theft of Venezuelan oil just leaves a bad stink that the US motivations aren't pure and good here, either.

Have you got a reputable link to support your claim of 133 deaths on the Venezuelan side, and the 7 injured, 2 critically on the US side?

[FlyersFan]

Trump was all set to go to war Wednesday.
But Tuesday night he changed his mind.
Advisors convinced him to back off and leave the protestors hanging.
Military officials were surprised at the 'no war'.

Article Here

[IDELB2006]

Just another Taco Tuesday.

[Waterglass]

Don’t know who they are but it’s obvious that the US isn’t controlled by the people who vote 
And the idea you think it’s Karen’s and whatever I’d testament to your own blindness

"And the idea you think it’s Karen’s and whatever I’d testament to your own blindness"  Its really too bad that your level of English comprehension is substandard as thats NOT what I wrote. I try to write in 5th grade readable Englisjh to help foreign professionals.  

الله أكبر

[Waterglass]

The MSM is generally pro war.

We’ve had plenty of war since WWII. Almost all of them were based on lies, with countries who posed exaggerated or zero threat to the US, and served no interest of the average American.

If the media showed any of that, it was after the fact. They’re happy to peddle the official government narrative on the lead up.

The MSM  certainly love blood, lust, greed and so much more as they project their own thoughts of how they live their own personal lives on us.  Most with millions or billions are weirdos. Especially the weird sexual stuff. Same for those Prince and Princess pounders

[CriticalStinker]

Just another Taco Tuesday.

 I wouldn't be too sure.

I think we're waiting for our aircraft carrier to move into position.

This isn't going to look like the summer exchange. In that one, Israel did a mostly surprise strike. We were due to meet with Iran the next day on nuclear negotiations. Iran struck back with a strong initial wave, likely to make Israel question their resolve. But after that, it was small volleys. Part of that I'm sure was due to Israel's success at controlling the airspace over Iran, and hitting their launch sites. But since then, there have been a lot of conflicting sources questioning how much of Iran's launch capacity was neutralized. 

Israel is one of the most capable militaries of their size, so I have no doubt they did damage. But Iran is one of the most mountainous countries on earth. I don't think they blew their full load, and it was obvious they wanted an offramp and were quick to engage in a cease fire. I think that is in large part due to the fact the pretext for all of this was their nuclear ambitions. The US and Israel got to declare victory claiming they eliminated the nuclear program, something even the Israeli's no longer say.

But now, the pretext is in no uncertain terms regime change. That needs to be taken into consideration when predicting what their response will be. This next conflict, if it happens, will be existential for Iran. And you can view that as the regime or the nation itself, because the two are often synonymous in this context. The regime itself certainly sees this as existential, and probably life or death after seeing Venezuela. They're murderous assholes, and one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth, make no mistake. But you also have to think of them as the devil the populace knows. So while many are protesting, you have to wonder how they'd view the US and Israel striking them. If that's the case, are they going to be more sympathetic to the regime or external nations? We also have to keep in mind that there is a well founded animosity for the United States, probably more than Israel in Iran. They did used to be more western, and have something most would consider a democracy. This was one of the first CIA regime change operations when we installed the shah. The shah was arguably as brutal, just without the religious extremism. 

Personally, I think the best move would to be finding a way to embrace the protest, and help it's momentum. "Helping" them with strikes would risk the nation unifying under the flag to external threats, including one many there view as a historical enemy.

All that said, I think we hit them. I just think we're getting the footing. And I think this is a real possibility this conflict humbles us on being so cavalier with our foreign policy. It's a lesson we learn every decade or two and forget. Recently we've had really quick and seemingly decisive action, so it's easy to ride that high. But one thing many also forget is that Iraq looked like a total victory for quite a while. It takes time for the ramifications to fester, but this conflict could very well be much more immediate. Iran still has thousands of estimated missiles, many of which have proven to get through defense systems. They could also choke out the Strait of Hormuz, which wouldn't effect the US too much, but would impact the region, Europe, and China heavily. That would create a lot more pressure for us geopolitically outside of just Iran.

[IDELB2006]

 I wouldn't be too sure.

I think we're waiting for our aircraft carrier to move into position.

This isn't going to look like the summer exchange. In that one, Israel did a mostly surprise strike. We were due to meet with Iran the next day on nuclear negotiations. Iran struck back with a strong initial wave, likely to make Israel question their resolve. But after that, it was small volleys. Part of that I'm sure was due to Israel's success at controlling the airspace over Iran, and hitting their launch sites. But since then, there have been a lot of conflicting sources questioning how much of Iran's launch capacity was neutralized. 

Israel is one of the most capable militaries of their size, so I have no doubt they did damage. But Iran is one of the most mountainous countries on earth. I don't think they blew their full load, and it was obvious they wanted an offramp and were quick to engage in a cease fire. I think that is in large part due to the fact the pretext for all of this was their nuclear ambitions. The US and Israel got to declare victory claiming they eliminated the nuclear program, something even the Israeli's no longer say.

But now, the pretext is in no uncertain terms regime change. That needs to be taken into consideration when predicting what their response will be. This next conflict, if it happens, will be existential for Iran. And you can view that as the regime or the nation itself, because the two are often synonymous in this context. The regime itself certainly sees this as existential, and probably life or death after seeing Venezuela. They're murderous assholes, and one of the most brutal dictatorships on earth, make no mistake. But you also have to think of them as the devil the populace knows. So while many are protesting, you have to wonder how they'd view the US and Israel striking them. If that's the case, are they going to be more sympathetic to the regime or external nations? We also have to keep in mind that there is a well founded animosity for the United States, probably more than Israel in Iran. They did used to be more western, and have something most would consider a democracy. This was one of the first CIA regime change operations when we installed the shah. The shah was arguably as brutal, just without the religious extremism. 

Personally, I think the best move would to be finding a way to embrace the protest, and help it's momentum. "Helping" them with strikes would risk the nation unifying under the flag to external threats, including one many there view as a historical enemy.

All that said, I think we hit them. I just think we're getting the footing. And I think this is a real possibility this conflict humbles us on being so cavalier with our foreign policy. It's a lesson we learn every decade or two and forget. Recently we've had really quick and seemingly decisive action, so it's easy to ride that high. But one thing many also forget is that Iraq looked like a total victory for quite a while. It takes time for the ramifications to fester, but this conflict could very well be much more immediate. Iran still has thousands of estimated missiles, many of which have proven to get through defense systems. They could also choke out the Strait of Hormuz, which wouldn't effect the US too much, but would impact the region, Europe, and China heavily. That would create a lot more pressure for us geopolitically outside of just Iran.

One factor would be that Trump tends to be a bit reactionary, and if his supporters react positively to his statements, as a populist, it will egg him on.

I have seen reported that he changed his mind after speaking with Israel. Someone on this board suggested that Israel's missile defense systems could be low. I would not be surprised if that was also a factor.

​It would also be easy for Iran to play off any outside attacks as being from Israel. Iran has a tight grip on the flow of information, and they have been making the Israelis a scape goat for all the worlds problems for centuries. That could easily turn the focus of the protesters away from the Iranian government, and towards Israel. The Iranian government has already declared that they are at war with Israeli and American government.

[chr0naut]

Have you got a reputable link to support your claim of 133 deaths on the Venezuelan side, and the 7 injured, 2 critically on the US side?

The more than 100 deaths and more than 100 injured was what the new Venezuelan President said. The 33 Cubans were reported by the Cuban Ambassador to the US. The 7 US soldiers with two seriously injured and still hospitalized were reported by the US DOD.

At this stage, who knows if the numbers are accurate.

We all saw that it started with a bombing run, which is a fairly indiscriminate killer. Then the troops were landed and it could be assumed that Maduro was protected by armed forces who returned fire. My guess is that it wasn't a simple arrest, but was a bit of a battle.

[angelchemuel]

The more than 100 deaths and more than 100 injured was what the new Venezuelan President said. The 33 Cubans were reported by the Cuban Ambassador to the US. The 7 US soldiers with two seriously injured and still hospitalized were reported by the US DOD.

At this stage, who knows if the numbers are accurate.

We all saw that it started with a bombing run, which is a fairly indiscriminate killer. Then the troops were landed and it could be assumed that Maduro was protected by armed forces who returned fire. My guess is that it wasn't a simple arrest, but was a bit of a battle.

I asked for a link to your information, you've also increased the numbers now.

More than 100 Venezuelans and 33 Cubans died during Maduro's arrest and 7 US soldiers were injured, two critically.