US kills Iran's General Soleimani

robgmun said:
China is a difficult one, the latest PM is dragging China back into being a proper Communist country again by state control in its citizens, he felt that it was drifting too much towards capitalism and is now pumping out Communist propaganda like no tomorrow. There was a stark difference from when i was over there in 2012 and again in late 2018.
Click to expand...

Private individuals are allowed to own property and companies though, there are a lot of Chinese billionaires, there aren't flat wages across the board. It isn't a true Marxist country, it's a very Authoritarian Socialist regime, but is still a Capitalist economy. Even the Chinese know the best way for an economy to prosper is to let the free market take it's course, even if you have controls in place, it isn't the old USSR where you sit on a waiting list for a car.

jamoor said:
What were the americans fighting against? Authoritarian regimes or centrally planned economies?
Click to expand...

You can't have a centrally planned economy without having a strong authoritarian government to put it into practice, so that's a philosophical question really.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Private individuals are allowed to own property and companies though, there are a lot of Chinese billionaires, there aren't flat wages across the board. It isn't a true Marxist country, it's a very Authoritarian Socialist regime, but is still a Capitalist economy. Even the Chinese know the best way for an economy to prosper is to let the free market take it's course, even if you have controls in place, it isn't the old USSR where you sit on a waiting list for a car.



You can't have a centrally planned economy without having a strong authoritarian government to put it into practice, so that's a philosophical question really.
Click to expand...


China today is the 21st century embodiment of 1930's Germany.
 
Jono8 said:
I would say getting them to sign up to an internationally agreed resolution to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons was progress and was working.

Now, because of Trump's actions, they have essentially abandoned it completely. So now what happens if they pursue getting a nuclear weapon due to the USA's aggression toward them?

We likely will end up with a very angry Iran, hell bent on developing nuclear weapons, as it will see that as the only way to prevent further US aggression.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Obama got to that state by turning a blind eye to all of the illicit activities that Iran were committing, Trump isn't doing that. It's like saying you can have a happy marriage if you ignore the fact your wife is having an affair.

Orionaut said:
China today is the 21st century embodiment of 1930's Germany.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Though they obviously lack *some* of the expansionist ambitions of Hitler (I hope).
 
Roar87 said:
The thing is, Obama got to that state by turning a blind eye to all of the illicit activities that Iran were committing, Trump isn't doing that. It's like saying you can have a happy marriage if you ignore the fact your wife is having an affair.
Click to expand...

But the alternative, is likely either a nuclear capable Iran, or war with Iran.

It is naive to think, that somehow all confrontation and animosity with Iran can be stopped in an instant.

What is prudent, is to try and build bridges and trust first and see where that can go. Now that is all lost, and it will likely take decades again before any sort of trust or relationship can be built up again.

Seriously, all those in favour of this operation and the collapse of the nuclear deal, what do you propose as a realistic alternative?
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
But the alternative, is likely either a nuclear capable Iran, or war with Iran.

It is naive to think, that somehow all confrontation and animosity with Iran can be stopped in an instant.

What is prudent, is to try and build bridges and trust first and see where that can go. Now that is all lost, and it will likely take decades again before any sort of trust or relationship can be built up again.

Seriously, all those in favour of this operation and the collapse of the nuclear deal, what do you propose a a realistic alternative?
Click to expand...

It's incorrect to accept them continuing illicit actions against ourselves and our allies by not doing anything on the basis that they're not developing nuclear weapons, that's just giving in to nuclear black mail. They need to act in good faith, stop funding groups who attack Israel, stop funding/arming groups who attack UK and US troops, if they do that then we won't attack members of their state who organise those activities. If they attempt to develop nuclear weapons then I'm certain the US with Trump in charge would not allow that to happen.
 
Last edited:
50 killed at stampead at his funeral/ burial. Lol

Don't care if I'm going to hell. Morons.
 
FoxEye said:
A strong deterrent against what?
Click to expand...


Attacking the US via proxy... I mean are you even following what has just happened?

Jono8 said:
I would say getting them to sign up to an internationally agreed resolution to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons was progress and was working.
Click to expand...

Debatable, but the main issue here that this action was in response to is proxy attacks on coalition forces. You can't say that is the result of the regulation as they were doing it for years.

Now, because of Trump's actions, they have essentially abandoned it completely. So now what happens if they pursue getting a nuclear weapon due to the USA's aggression toward them?
Click to expand...

Generally Israel will be rather keen to bomb the **** out of relevant facilities but I suspect the US would be happy to do so too.
 
Efour said:
50 killed at stampead at his funeral/ burial. Lol

Don't care if I'm going to hell. Morons.
Click to expand...

Yea and we are supposed to be worried about these people...

The US kill one nasty general and 50 people squash themselves to death at the funeral. I mean wtf...
 
Roar87 said:
It's incorrect to accept them continuing illicit actions against ourselves and our allies by not doing anything on the basis that they're not developing nuclear weapons, that's just giving in to nuclear black mail. They need to act in good faith, stop funding groups who attack Israel, stop funding/arming groups who attack UK and US troops, if they do that then we won't attack members of their state who organise those activities. If they attempt to develop nuclear weapons then I'm certain the US with Trump in charge would not allow that to happen.
Click to expand...
So when we do things like funding and arming insurgents (like the Taliban and ISIS in the early days), inciting regime change, etc... that's righteous and true.

But when other nations do it they're "terrorists".

This is the disconnect I really don't understand. If a western, capitalism (ie best most freeeeeeeedoms) nation does any of those things, it's "defence of our way of life" or "bringing peace to the region".

But for anyone else to start doing that, then we are justified in smacking them for six with conventional arms... and also... trying to incite regime change, funding proxy wars against them, arming their enemies, etc.. :p

Isn't it all the same bloody thing?
 
Amnesia said:
Just saw this on Reddit, I feel it belongs here.

Click to expand...

It's a non-binding vote, the decision is down the the Iraqi government and tbh.. if it all kicks off with the Sunni/Kurds etc... who have very very good reasons not to want the US to go/Iran and the Shia to be further unchecked then you could find the country splitting... if they want a southern Iraq free of US troops and aligned with Iran and all the baggage (read sanctions etc..) that go along with that then go for it... it won't be pretty.
 
Nasher said:
Yea and we are supposed to be worried about these people...

The US kill one nasty general and 50 people squash themselves to death at the funeral. I mean wtf...
Click to expand...
Yes coz that's never happened in British football stadiums, has it. Only morons could crush themselves to death, eh?
 
dowie said:
It's a non-binding vote, the decision is down the the Iraqi government and tbh.. if it all kicks off with the Sunni/Kurds etc... who have very very good reasons not to want the US to go/Iran and the Shia to be further unchecked then you could find the country splitting... if they want a southern Iraq free of US troops and aligned with Iran and all the baggage (read sanctions etc..) that go along with that then go for it... it won't be pretty.
Click to expand...


Wasn't a serious post, just a bit of humour.
 
FoxEye said:
So when we do things like funding and arming insurgents (like the Taliban and ISIS in the early days), inciting regime change, etc... that's righteous and true.
Click to expand...

We didn't arm ISIS and the Taliban.

But when other nations do it they're "terrorists".

This is the disconnect I really don't understand. If a western, capitalism (ie best most freeeeeeeedoms) nation does any of those things, it's "defence of our way of life" or "bringing peace to the region".
Click to expand...

Because you're presenting simplistic comparisons by conflating some rather different actions... no nuance at all - the US/UK have backed insurgent groups in the past therefore it's the same. With arguments like that then yes you might well get confused but that's mostly on you.
 
FoxEye said:
Yes coz that's never happened in British football stadiums, has it. Only morons could crush themselves to death, eh?
Click to expand...

That was caused by outside factors. Not just a bunch of people who don't know how to behave in a crowd.

This is like people being crushed to death at a state funeral.
 
FoxEye said:
So when we do things like funding and arming insurgents (like the Taliban and ISIS in the early days), inciting regime change, etc... that's righteous and true.

But when other nations do it they're "terrorists".

This is the disconnect I really don't understand. If a western, capitalism (ie best most freeeeeeeedoms) nation does any of those things, it's "defence of our way of life" or "bringing peace to the region".

But for anyone else to start doing that, then we are justified in smacking them for six with conventional arms... and also... trying to incite regime change, funding proxy wars against them, arming their enemies, etc.. :p

Isn't it all the same bloody thing?
Click to expand...

I am on the side of Western Democracy and free market capitalism, we have free speech, equality and opportunity. I believe we are right. You seem to be equating us fighting for that to Authoritarian oppressive regimes presiding over countries they have turned into **** holes. Of course every action the UK and US take isn't virtuous and without flaw, but the enemy has done far worse. Go watch some documentaries about the Taliban or ISIS then try and compare us to them, I just don't think you have a clue
 
dowie said:
We didn't arm ISIS and the Taliban.
Click to expand...
It's accurate to say we armed, trained and supported the same people who would become the Taliban, etc, when they were fighting the Russians (etc)

The CIA has been involved in that area, arming and assisting various factions for decades. Those factions tend to dissolve and reform, fighters leaving and joining and merging various groups, or making alliances, and you do indeed end up fighting against the same people you trained and armed. The Taliban was one example of that.

As for ISIS we didn't do much better. We armed various "moderate" factions, whose fighters ended up either selling their arms on to ISIS or switching sides, depending who you read. There were various reports even of CIA backed factions fighting Pentagon backed factions. A right mess.

But the point is we habitually arm foreign fighters for the express purpose of fighting proxy wars. There is absolutely no doubting that.

We fund and back insurgencies to overthrow sovereign governments too. But it's for peace and freedom and democracy when we do it. Not oil or gas pipelines or having bases near our enemies or installing puppet governments next to our enemies. No we just want to spread freeeedoms and love. Via proxy wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom