Iran v US confrontation

milemuncher777 said:
So your response to Iranians destroying Syria is to claim a whataboutery.
Click to expand...

I think it's a stretch to put the blame for what happened in Syria (solely) at Iran's feet and I think it's hypocritical to blame them for something lots of other countries (including their current adversaries) do as well. It's also not whataboutism when other countries are doing the same thing and I find it equally "bad" in both cases.
 
Last edited:
milemuncher777 said:
Iran is directly responsible for deaths of half a million syrians civilians by propping Assad.
Click to expand...
This is a ludicrously one sided assessment of it. It was a civil war where the Iranians and Russians propped up one side, and the the Saudis, Emirates, Turkey and US propping up the other. The rebel factions committed just as many if not more atrocities than the regime.

To simply say Iran are responsible for killing half a million Syrians is disingenuous at best. If you’re sticking to that line then you’d hold the Americans responsible for the million + Iraqis killed since 2003 (which they’re more culpable for), or their allies the Saudis who’s pointless war in Yemen has killed 100,000 and putting millions at risk of starvation.
 
Kaos said:
This is a ludicrously one sided assessment of it. It was a civil war where the Iranians and Russians propped up one side, and the the Saudis, Emirates, Turkey and US propping up the other. The rebel factions committed just as many if not more atrocities than the regime.

To simply say Iran are responsible for killing half a million Syrians is disingenuous at best. If you’re sticking to that line then you’d hold the Americans responsible for the million + Iraqis killed since 2003 (which they’re more culpable for), or their allies the Saudis who’s pointless war in Yemen has killed 100,000 and putting millions at risk of starvation.
Click to expand...
Knowing @milemuncher777 like I do, I can assure you that he does and will confirm it when he replies. He isn't partisan in any way shape or form when it comes to these conflicts and call easily call a spade a spade.

Iran, through propping up a despot like Assad, has contributed to the deaths or many thousands of Syrians. The USA's blood lust in the Middle East has decimated Iraq, and the Saudis are despicable in their aggressions in Yemen.

It's not an either/or situation. At all. It's about basic humanity.
 
africanspur said:
It is being reported that Trump seemingly gave the order to bomb and then pulled back at the last second.
Click to expand...

I love how he seems to be peddling this as though it makes him some kind of measured statesman who compassionately averted a war.

It actually makes him look like a fool who couldn't make his mind up.



This quote from Iran is basically a veiled threat that they will attack Israel/other allies if the US attack them:

"any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences"
Click to expand...
 
2mufc0 said:
Nice whataboutery. Doesn't make any side innocent
Click to expand...

It's not whataboutery, it's pointing out blatant hypocrisy. Trust me, I’m no fan of the Iranian regime, they are to be condemned.

However, the region is absolutely fecked, with atrocities committed on all sides whether it’s Assad flattening Aleppo with Russian and Iranian backing or western backed forces and NATO planes destroying Raqqa. Iran has a despicable regime, but their enemies are no better on any metric. Therefore, any outrage at the Iranian side is completely false because they haven’t done anything that any other country in the region either hasn’t done already or wouldn’t do in their position. This isn’t Serbia ethnically cleansing a population, or Sierra Leone in 2000.

In my opinion, I don't actually think that Israel, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states want regime change in Iran because they're a really useful enemy to have. The mullahs ensure unconditional American support and aid. Iran has highly educated and literate population, coupled with vast amounts of oil that they cannot export. If they were to liberalise and come in from the cold, it would pose a massive economic threat to the current allies in the area. There’s a reason why Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Iranian hardliners all hated the nuclear deal (the IRGC are like the mafia who control all business in Iran - the deal threatened that).

Therefore, for all the bluster and bullshit out of the region, the aim of the game is to keep the pressure on Iran without ever forcing out the regime.

Donald Trump is unpredictable, however. He might feck it for everyone.
 
11101 said:
I love how he seems to be peddling this as though it makes him some kind of measured statesman who compassionately averted a war.

It actually makes him look like a fool who couldn't make his mind up.



This quote from Iran is basically a veiled threat that they will attack Israel/other allies if the US attack them:
Click to expand...

All bluster from the Iranians (as well as Trump). They know they would get hammered even harder if they attempt to escalate regionally.
 
Kaos said:
This is a ludicrously one sided assessment of it. It was a civil war where the Iranians and Russians propped up one side, and the the Saudis, Emirates, Turkey and US propping up the other. The rebel factions committed just as many if not more atrocities than the regime.

To simply say Iran are responsible for killing half a million Syrians is disingenuous at best. If you’re sticking to that line then you’d hold the Americans responsible for the million + Iraqis killed since 2003 (which they’re more culpable for), or their allies the Saudis who’s pointless war in Yemen has killed 100,000 and putting millions at risk of starvation.
Click to expand...
So another post of whataboutism.

Of course i hold them responsible. Is this even a question to ask after so much destruction and death is committed ? I’ll call out atrocities committed by any party whether its Americans, Saudis, Rebels or whoever but unlike others I won’t defend a butchery of brutal dictator just because he happens to be a defender of secularism.

It makes person a complete hypocrite if one is criticising America for destroying Iraq but at the same time defending Assad for destroying Syria.
 
BREAKING: Iran claims it could have shot down US military aircraft with 35 personnel on board, but decided to not to after the plane responded to warnings.
 
Why do I get my statements from the US President on matters of war and peace in the way a 6 year old would describe things?




 
Are those figures real or does he pull them out if his arse
 
Spark said:
It's not whataboutery, it's pointing out blatant hypocrisy. Trust me, I’m no fan of the Iranian regime, they are to be condemned.

However, the region is absolutely fecked, with atrocities committed on all sides whether it’s Assad flattening Aleppo with Russian and Iranian backing or western backed forces and NATO planes destroying Raqqa. Iran has a despicable regime, but their enemies are no better on any metric. Therefore, any outrage at the Iranian side is completely false because they haven’t done anything that any other country in the region either hasn’t done already or wouldn’t do in their position. This isn’t Serbia ethnically cleansing a population, or Sierra Leone in 2000.

In my opinion, I don't actually think that Israel, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states want regime change in Iran because they're a really useful enemy to have. The mullahs ensure unconditional American support and aid. Iran has highly educated and literate population, coupled with vast amounts of oil that they cannot export. If they were to liberalise and come in from the cold, it would pose a massive economic threat to the current allies in the area. There’s a reason why Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Iranian hardliners all hated the nuclear deal (the IRGC are like the mafia who control all business in Iran - the deal threatened that).

Therefore, for all the bluster and bullshit out of the region, the aim of the game is to keep the pressure on Iran without ever forcing out the regime.

Donald Trump is unpredictable, however. He might feck it for everyone.
Click to expand...

Easily one of the best posts in the thread. Spot on mate.

Also, Yanks lusting for blood over a drone, where we're a few days away from 21st anniversary of them shutting down an Iranian passenger airbus flying over the Persian Gulf, killing 290, including over 60 children....and they NEVER apologized for it. Get to feck
 
VorZakone said:
Why is Iran "not allowed" to have nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
Well, in theory the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework says that no one except the original big boys (China, France, Russia, UK, US) is allowed to develop them. And those who do should work to get rid of them.

But in practice as long as about a majority of the original 5 are ok with you having them, and maybe even give you a hand, you can also build yourself a few. Hence India, Israel and Pakistan.
 
VorZakone said:
2 wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Its not really about right or wrong - its about how power is distributed in the global system. There are one or two top dogs (maybe three) in the game today and if you run afoul of the world's most powerful state then there will be consequences. The world is not a democracy.
 
Raoul said:
Its not really about right or wrong - its about how power is distributed in the global system. There are one or two top dogs (maybe three) in the game today and if you run afoul of the world's most powerful state then there will be consequences. The world is not a democracy.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying what you said in the 'Russia's at it again' thread:

Raoul said:
Even if you believe this, surely two wrongs don't make a right ?
Click to expand...
Raoul said:
Ahh the old two wrongs make a right argument.
Click to expand...
 
wr8_utd said:
BREAKING: Iran claims it could have shot down US military aircraft with 35 personnel on board, but decided to not to after the plane responded to warnings.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have dared. Tehran would get flattened within hours if they killed American soldiers.
 
MTF said:
Well, in theory the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework says that no one except the original big boys (China, France, Russia, UK, US) is allowed to develop them. And those who do should work to get rid of them.

But in practice as long as about a majority of the original 5 are ok with you having them, and maybe even give you a hand, you can also build yourself a few. Hence India, Israel and Pakistan.
Click to expand...
India, Israel and Pakistan aren't signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty. The treaty only applies to those that have signed it. Iran is part of the NPT so they're going against their commitment if they develop nuclear arms.
 
VorZakone said:
I'm just saying what you said in the 'Russia's at it again' thread:
Click to expand...

They certainly don't make a right. The Russians will have to deal with whoever replaces Trump and will likely not be pleased with the outcome.

On this topic, the US is the most powerful state in the world and can basically do what it wants, and the Iranians are in a bad position if they think they can fight their way out of this.
 
ThatsGreat said:
India, Israel and Pakistan aren't signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty. The treaty only applies to those that have signed it. Iran is part of the NPT so they're going against their commitment if they develop nuclear arms.
Click to expand...

Yes. Although I think India might sign it in the near future on the condition that we join the security council as the 6th permanent member. Israel hasn't officialy declared they have nukes so its pointless and the less said about pakistan the better.
 
milemuncher777 said:
So another post of whataboutism.

Of course i hold them responsible. Is this even a question to ask after so much destruction and death is committed ? I’ll call out atrocities committed by any party whether its Americans, Saudis, Rebels or whoever but unlike others I won’t defend a butchery of brutal dictator just because he happens to be a defender of secularism.

It makes person a complete hypocrite if one is criticising America for destroying Iraq but at the same time defending Assad for destroying Syria.
Click to expand...
You claimed Iran were responsible for all the deaths in the Syrian war. It’s not whataboutism to call that out as being absurd.
 
Raoul said:
They certainly don't make a right. The Russians will have to deal with whoever replaces Trump and will likely not be pleased with the outcome.

On this topic, the US is the most powerful state in the world and can basically do what it wants, and the Iranians are in a bad position if they think they can fight their way out of this.
Click to expand...
So why do you have this tendency to throw "whataboutism" and "two wrongs don't make a right" at posters when you admitted that it's all not about right or wrong anyway, but about power:

Raoul said:
Its not really about right or wrong - its about how power is distributed in the global system. There are one or two top dogs (maybe three) in the game today and if you run afoul of the world's most powerful state then there will be consequences. The world is not a democracy.
Click to expand...

You tend to involve morality in these discussions when it's about other countries' dirty behavior, but when it's about the US' behavior, then it's not about morals anymore but how this is how the world works and the US can throw its weight around because of its power and that the world isn't a democracy etc etc etc. Which is true by the way, but don't involve morality when other countries are trying anything they can to gain some power themselves.
 
The very idea you can tell others that they must not have nukes when you have the worlds largest stockpile is frankly a bizarre concept.
As for Trump, he knows any type of military conflict is a death sentence with his base. This isn't some sort of altruism.
 
VorZakone said:
So why do you have this tendency to throw "whataboutism" and "two wrongs don't make a right" at posters when you admitted that it's all not about right or wrong anyway, but about power:



You tend to involve morality in these discussions when it's about other countries' dirty behavior, but when it's about the US' behavior, then it's not about morals anymore but how this is how the world works and the US can throw its weight around because of its power and that the world isn't a democracy etc etc etc. Which is true by the way, but don't involve morality when other countries are trying anything they can to gain some power themselves.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it's a matter of power, which means there going to be plenty of inconsistencies if you attempt to weigh the behavior of a superpower with some random smaller state who doesn't have the means to behave in a similar way. You can look at it from a moral lense as well but power is a much more appealing way to look at it if you're going by structural realism.
 
Raoul said:
Ultimately, it's a matter of power, which means there going to be plenty of inconsistencies if you attempt to weigh the behavior of a superpower with some random smaller state who doesn't have the means to behave in a similar way. You can look at it from a moral lense as well but power is a much more appealing way to look at it if you're going by structural realism.
Click to expand...
I feel like you're not really responding to my post. We all realise it's a matter of power. So what was the point of you throwing the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument at posters in the thread about Russia?
 
Last edited:
Someone impeach that fuzzy haired Oompah Loompah before he does something stupid. He's like a school bully thinking he's solid bringing his dad's gun into school.
 
VorZakone said:
I feel like you're not really responding to my point. We all realise it's a matter of power. So what was the point of you throwing the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument at posters in other threads?
Click to expand...

There was no specific point other than to say just that. The issue here is that Iran doesn't have some sort of right to nukes just because the US has them, so even if you think the concept of nukes is generally bad, the power structure of global politics still dictates that superpowers will attempt to maximize their power by preventing smaller states, especially dictatorships, from acquiring nukes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.