undefined | Better HN

0 pointsslv7710mo ago0 comments

Iran sponsored insurgents in Iraq and provided the training and means to build explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/01/03/...

The US assassinated Soleimanis and Iran reponded with direct middle attacks on US bases:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani

Iranian activity agains the US goes back decades and has escalated recently:

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/iranian-and-iranian-...

Other than a brief thaw in relations in 2015 there is nothing that would suggest that Iran’s anti-US rhetoric is for domestic consumption and for show.

0 comments

baxuz10mo ago

You mean troops from occupying forces that engaged in an illegal war to overthrow the government, based on lies about WMDs, who killed over 120,000 civilians?

As far as I'm aware, you don't get to project military force 8000 miles away and then complain about killed soldiers. Which has been the US' favourite past time since the 60s.

UncleMeat10mo ago

So, should we have invaded in 2003? Why were the people now calling to just kill the entire country not talking about this just two weeks ago, let alone years or decades ago?

daveguy10mo ago

> explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops...

Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized retaliatory action against US troops. /s

slv77OP10mo ago

I’m not arguing for or against the merits of the recent strikes. I am disputing the notion that Iran’s anti-US stance is purely rhetoric for domestic consumption.

One of the arguments against limited strikes against the Iranians was that it would be simply stirring up the hornets nest and things spiraling out of control.

daveguy10mo ago

I agree. I was pointing out that these anti-US-troop actions by Iran were related to prior conflicts / actions by the US. There was unlikely any consideration to downstream reactions which will endanger our troops. Completely short-sighted warmongering.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

baxuz10mo ago

You mean troops from occupying forces that engaged in an illegal war to overthrow the government, based on lies about WMDs, who killed over 120,000 civilians?

As far as I'm aware, you don't get to project military force 8000 miles away and then complain about killed soldiers. Which has been the US' favourite past time since the 60s.

UncleMeat10mo ago

So, should we have invaded in 2003? Why were the people now calling to just kill the entire country not talking about this just two weeks ago, let alone years or decades ago?

daveguy10mo ago

> explosively formed penetrators that killed 196 US troops...

Well, it's a good thing Trump completely neutralized retaliatory action against US troops. /s

slv77OP10mo ago

I’m not arguing for or against the merits of the recent strikes. I am disputing the notion that Iran’s anti-US stance is purely rhetoric for domestic consumption.

One of the arguments against limited strikes against the Iranians was that it would be simply stirring up the hornets nest and things spiraling out of control.

daveguy10mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse