That is spot on and is most certainly describes 99% of the people in the trump hating SC thread.
Is there a new thread? As I can only see the blindly faithful "Trump lovers" thread...........
US kills Iran's General Soleimani
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Is there a new thread? As I can only see the blindly faithful "Trump lovers" thread...........
We shouldn't be there, thousands of miles away from our homelands.
We've demonstrated over decades we can't turn them into us. Nor do they want to be us. Nor should we demand that they adopt our ways.
The "best" Trump et al can do is bomb them back into the stone age. He's got nothing else, and clearly diplomacy isn't his thing. For what?
No, I tell a lie. He can starve their people with sanctions too, until they two the US lines.
You have a strange way of showing love by spouting hate for your orange leader.
It would be more accurate to point out that that applies to a few of them and that plenty of former mujahideen in fact opposed the Taliban and were happy to ally with coalition forces in overthrowing them too. Significant figures in what would later become the Taliban were back then funded by the Saudis and later, when the Taliban was formed, by Pakistan. Likewise re: Al Qaeda - OBL was Saudi funded not US funded.
That isn't something that needed to be pointed out, it's already acknowledged.
Its when you try to conflate that with Irans actions and then draw some simplistic false equivalency you become rather silly.
So where are we know then. Are we in a better situation? No.
We now have an angry Iran, who will likely increase proxy attacks as they will not want to be seen as weak and not retaliate. This will likely lead to war.
They will also probably start trying to build a nuclear weapon/increase uranium enrichment. This will likely lead to war.
You of all people, being the top poster in the brexit thread, should understand the concrete stubbornness that comes with nationalistic pride. To think Iran are just going to put this behind them, not retaliate and not pursue nuclear weapons is pure folly.
Except we've matched them and probably worse, many times. Several of us have pointed out that we've achieved the overthrowing of Iran's government multiple times in the 20th century. Mostly because we wanted their oil and didn't want to pay for it (beyond a frankly insulting 10%).
We've overthrown governments, invaded sovereign countries, carried out assassinations, armed insurgents for the express purpose of overthrowing governments... none of this is debatable. It's "silly" to try to deny it.
We already had an angry Iran. Doing nothing didn't work did it....
Arguably they already were.
LOL - I love how people allow opinions on things like Trump and Brexit to cloud their views on other topics. It does seem to be a trend to be so sure of yourself re: prediction on what will happen in future...
Again they can engage in proxy attacks - this time if they do they'll have direct consequences to worry about, not more statements condemning them or more sanctions but potentially missiles being fired out of the blue and blowing up their HQ's or the homes of top officials or their car the next time they're out and about... perhaps you should understand that when they've had years of getting away with this stuff Scott free (re: direct, personal consequences) and now there are serious repercussions then they might need to be a bit more cautious. They might be fanatics but not all will have a death wish - if they want to increase the chances of their own demise then that's up to them.
Again though, the point that seems to get completely missed - they're the aggressors, they attacked the US and have been doing so in Iraq for years - the US has the right to respond and that's completely on Iran tbh...
Again with the conflating of rather different things... but meh...
Invasion of Iraq is on Bush/Blair. Current presence in Iraq is with permission... the previous invasion of Iraq isn't a justification for Iranian attacks(in fact they and the Shia militias were happy enough to see Saddam gone they just didn't want the coalition hanging around - they'd rather have turned Iraq into Iran mk2 right away - it's going that way in some respects regardless and there is the risk of it splitting but meh...). Sanctions aren't a justification for Iranian attacks...
Iranian attacks are however a justification for a response that was directed, rather surgically, to the people literally behind those attacks.
Different only because it's us doing it. Sure.
At least some of the other posters were honest about having dual standards, saying that they basically were on the side of the Western nations (governments), and wanted to see their international "enemies" subdued; possibly also transformed so they look like us. That's honest, even if I disagree with them.
No just because you're just throwing whatever simplistic nonsense you can as some vague justification...
the west did something bad back then therefore the same... it's more derp.
See this is where I've learned you go when you've got nothing.
"Your argument is herp derp; you look silly; you should stop posting because you're wrong."
Very informative and persuasive, naturally. Many of your contributions in threads across this site end up with this being your final retort.
Coz you've got.... nothing, most of the time. See the Brexit thread for a prime example. You won't stop posting even when you can't begin to put an argument together.
You're acting like we can exist in a bubble, as if international trade and foreign relationships are just concepts that shouldn't be a thing. The reality is we are there because we need to be there, we buy and sell oil, without oil we would starve and cease to exist. The danger of not being there is that someone decides to cut our supply of oil off and we are powerless to react. Such as Iran has actually done in the past and would love to do again. That isn't just an inconvenience, it's billions of pounds worth of damage to our economy, that's very real money that gets spent on things you probably do want such as the NHS and social spending. I'm so bored of this stupid pacifist ideology as if everything will be great if we just sit back and close our eyes, it's so ignorant.
It's not my final retort and I'm more than happy to discuss this topic - it's just you've come back repeatedly with these dumb comparisons where you basically just construct an argument of the west has done some bad stuff therefore they're the same...
Indeed.
The trouble is we don't just intervene when it's necessary to defend our citizens or resources.
We intervene when we think we can get some advantage out of it.
It's not purely defensive, and if it was people would have less of an issue.
We actively try to destroy our rivals, at every opportunity. We often don't want peaceful co-existence, because there is greater advantage to be gained from hostility.
LOL - spot the people with their blinkers on because of Brexit or because of their views on Trump etc...
Well, re predictions. We will have to see wont we.
If this ends up in a large war with Iran, a nuclear powered Iran, or countless more attacks by either side, will it have been worth it?
Nothing to do with blinkers. It is entirely factual that the Trump admin has dramatically increased tensions with Iran.
Well of course a nuclear powered Iran wouldn't be a good thing - not sure this will result in that, arguably that is the potential result of doing nothing too.
How has doing nothing worked out so far re: stopping proxy attacks - well we know the answer to that one already, they continued....
So given they're already quite keen on attacking the US via proxy then they can carry on doing more of the same (perhaps motivated to speed up or create some as a reaction but it's not as though they weren't already doing this) and in return they'll get a direct response... or they can think a bit more carefully.
Doing nothing though - well they'll carry on as before.
Tensions were always there, trying to sweep them under the rug temporarily or pretend they weren't there for a bit is just PR.
This is a pretty odd take on things.
Yes tensions were still there, but I never said they werent. They have increased a lot due to Trump's actions though.
There isn't some magic bit of diplomacy that will end all tensions and all attacks overnight. No doubt there are plenty of warring factions inside Iran with different view points which makes illuminating hostility overnight impossible.
As I said earlier, the nuclear deal was a good way to get off on the right foot and diffuse tensions slowly and build trust.