Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,452
I see Trump is spewing his usual bravado saying Iran would get obliterated if conflict happened, not exactly the way I'd go about trying to de-escalate things
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Put yourself in the shoes of the leader of Iran, the President of the United States is publicly stating that your country will be obliterated if you go to war, most likely you'll decide you don't want that and it'd be a good idea to not escalate things further and start talking. Equally the millions of people who live in Iran will be very vocal about the fact they don't want that either.
Soldato
So are you saying that so long as us (the west) are not being imperialist, it's alright for another country to bomb the hell out of its people however it likes, without scrutiny? I'm not sure exactly but that's essentially what I'm getting... Also not sure how that is at all relative
but I'm glad to see a resident shill popping their head up over the parapets, so fair play to you.
So are you saying that so long as us (the west) are not being imperialist, it's alright for another country to bomb the hell out of its people however it likes, without scrutiny? I'm not sure exactly but that's essentially what I'm getting... Also not sure how that is at all relative
I mean we're 'helping' Saudi Arabia massacre children in Yemen and almost to the point of genocidal starvation, so i'll shill for people to not suffer that every time ty.
You know actually if we we're in Yemen atleast there would be a level of professionalism.
Soldato
But I'm asking, will you offer the same level of scrutiny when Russia, Syria and Iran bomb the region back to the stone age, without much restraint? I suspect not.
Yemen is a bad situation. The Saudi's are bombing a group of people who over threw the government and are essentially similar to ISIS, their slogan is "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam". By bombing and blockading Yemen in order to defeat the insane group of religious fundamentalists who've taken over they're also starving a lot of people. The alternative is of course letting that group control Yemen and inflict massive levels of oppression on it's people and probably end up exporting a few terrorists who will come to our countries with the express intention of killing as many of us as possible. The only way to solve the situation would be to go to war properly and send in ground troops, but again thousands of people will die, it'll costs billions and there's zero appetite for that. So what should we do instead StriderX? Stop selling arms to the Saudi's even though they're actually bombing people who literally want to kill us? Great, they'll go buy arms else where and we'll be slightly poorer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,452
The same Iran who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet ?
I'm not sure rational thought goes through any of these nations leaders minds
They already did...
Oh no, slightly poorer, god forbid we can't explode children's remains over a road by proxy with zero oversight. I knew someone would say someone else would send them arms, good for them, but we ******* shouldn't just hand them out like candy to everyone with a lack of supervision.
Otherwise might aswell just straight up give them to all sides and be truly morally defective, it's all about money right?
Last edited:
It's fairly rational. Israel is basically illegally occupying land that was held by Muslims, they don't like each other very much. It would be irrational for them to attempt to destroy Israel though which is why they haven't done that.
It isn't moral to sell Saudi Arabia arms, but it's also immoral to let a Houthi group control Yemen, imagine what they'll do and what they are doing to the people who live there. There's no good solutions really. Yet all you can do is scream how evil the UK government is.
Soldato
In Yemen we have a situation where a combination of Sunni "Al-Qa'ida in Yemen" (AQY), Shia Houthis and Iranian supported "other groups" all lumped under the umbrella of "Rebels" has sparked a civil war from way back in 2010 (becoming a full civil war in 2015), killing tens of thousands in the process so far and by refusing to back down, bringing suffering to millions.
Yet apparently to StriderX it's somehow Saudi Arabia, whose airstrike targeting has been god awful TBH yet has killed far less kids than the "rebels" and has been accidental, who appear to be the main people he blames and not the terrorists ripping a country apart so they can bring their own warped version of Islam to it.
I find that to be an odd attitude.
Yet apparently to StriderX it's somehow Saudi Arabia, whose airstrike targeting has been god awful TBH yet has killed far less kids than the "rebels" and has been accidental, who appear to be the main people he blames and not the terrorists ripping a country apart so they can bring their own warped version of Islam to it.
I find that to be an odd attitude.
Then why haven't we joined fully, rather than allowing this farce to continue, clearly the Saudi's suck (and will likely always suck). It's this hands off approach after Iraq/Afghanistan that frankly is even worse optics than just doing it ourselves.
It makes us look like uncaring profiteers as frankly Yemen hasn't really been in the news besides the narrative of what we sell them.
I want to be completely hands off or totally hands in, keeping a finger in the pie is repugnant, honestly i feel this is more about the lack of actual leadership in this country that's amplified how selfish this looks, the fact is it's now in court and the sales are suspended because they wrote it off as easily as they wrote off the pizza firm who had no ferries.
Had the Iraq war in particular been purely about removing a **** from power and not some mostly pointless exaggerations, this would be much less aggravating sell (less long-standing domestic political disenfranchisement). Though to be fair it doesn't fit well with election periods anyway, where it slowly toxifies the government who have a near daily death toll to deal with, a truly charismatic leader should be able to explain that it was worth our time to help these people.
God knows maybe Yemen is just a convenient political testbed (beyond the Arab League taking a more active roll in dealing with it's own people) to prove that acting is better than not acting, but then we already knew this with the genocide in Rwanda and more recently Burma (Myanmar), maybe just being honest that the West doesn't actually care would be easier to deal with.
This is before the fact that the extortionately rich nations in the area have a political gravity on us even in domestic issues, that Riyadh actually has enough sway in our foreign policy to make not trading with them an issue of potential smearing for the establishment if they didn't bend over for them. (barely a peep about their extrajudicial slaughter of a man and the extreme PR campaign in London when their resident dictator-to-be was to be in town for... that was particularly sad)
Am rambling, it's decidedly incoherent, but whatever, i don't actually expect people to read it anyway.
Last edited:
What the **** was the point of this? other than propaganda value for the mass home audience who can't think for themselves:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48735097
At best it just temporary inconveniences them and shows your hand in terms of ewar capability which could be better utilised at an actual time of need and now allows them a chance to harden their systems against a future attack.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48735097
At best it just temporary inconveniences them and shows your hand in terms of ewar capability which could be better utilised at an actual time of need and now allows them a chance to harden their systems against a future attack.
It's just showing a response. Because they have nothing else. I think it's also a reply to last weeks claims from Iran that they took down an entire US "spy network" in their country. Posturing from both sides.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,452
Soldato
It's interesting that you're quite publicly OUTRAGED by your opinion that the west is, by proxy, commiting some heinous acts. Your emotionally charged comment above being quite telling. Yet we see no outrage at what the Russians and Syria are doing, directly striking whoever, wherever, without restraint. I guess it's not really being spun up in the media as much though and being forced upon you in order to create that outrage in you. That or you just don't care and you're therefore just a hypocrite. We both know which of those options it is too
It's interesting that you're quite publicly OUTRAGED by your opinion that the west is, by proxy, commiting some heinous acts. Your emotionally charged comment above being quite telling. Yet we see no outrage at what the Russians and Syria are doing, directly striking whoever, wherever, without restraint. I guess it's not really being spun up in the media as much though and being forced upon you in order to create that outrage in you. That or you just don't care and you're therefore just a hypocrite. We both know which of those options it is too
I notice it is very one sided though I guess it doesn't make the news here - couple of videos up last week from Syria around Idlib province where the Russian (and a smaller compliment from the Syrian side) Airforce gave people not even 5 minutes notice then bombed the **** out of around 3-4 square miles of houses and farmland - maybe a dozen fighters and ~500 civilians in the area.
Rather than start another thread whole load of stuff (separate events) going on this evening in the general region involving Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey though lots of confusion and BS at the moment so probably best to wait until morning to see what is what.
Seems Iranian proxies have been trying to stir up the fire in a number of places or someone trying to make it look like that.
Seems Iranian proxies have been trying to stir up the fire in a number of places or someone trying to make it look like that.
Soldato
How far back do you want to go on who's land it is.
By "who's land it is", who are you referring to, just Jewish people? I don't think you can claim land based on MAYBE being related to someone who used to live there thousands of years ago, that's quite obviously ridiculous. By occupying illegally I'm referring to the rulings by the UN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel