Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blacksmith]

Shush now, McDrowner. I was clearly kidding. Everyone knows we installed and funded the dictator that later got overthrown in favour of the theocracy by the oppressed people of Iran, and we were very disappointed to see him go. We've been at odds with the Theocracy government pretty much form the get go.

Just because Palsch is setting a particular example for post quality doesn't mean I need to emulate him.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?

How about that Adolf Hitler guy? Leaving him alone worked out well. Your premise is flawed. Muslim countries we never messed with hate us. Saudi Arabia hates us, Kuwait hates us even though we saved their sorry butts.

[Sirus]

Does that count as a Godwin?

[Urist_McDrowner]

Does that count as a Godwin?

Introducing Hitler while talking about oppressive murderous regimes is allowed.

[Kilroy the Grand]

Iran is a rational, yet sinister actor. They fund hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They fund the Syrian government. They fight the cause of freedom wherever possible. Those things are the symptom, Iran is the disease. By treating the symptoms and not the disease, all we do is buy time and put the patient through more pain.

Well from your position, it must be ease to call them a "disease" and they "fight the cause of freedom". I'm sure where they are standing they are standing on a precipice, on one side you have one of the worlds largest militaries wringing it's hands and massing ships in a vital shipping lane. On their door step is a nuclear capable nation, who isn't to shy about appropriating land.

They might even trust us if we didn't have a penchant for overthrowing democracies to install a more western friendly one in it's stead, you know, like in 1953 when we overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh?

How about that Adolf Hitler guy? Leaving him alone worked out well. Your premise is flawed. Muslim countries we never messed with hate us. Saudi Arabia hates us, Kuwait hates us even though we saved their sorry butts.

Huh, a bunch of oil rich middle eastern countries you know, kinda like those that we overthrew, don't trust us whodathunk it? Destabalizing the entire region and being butt buddies with israel also isn't winning us any favors. We've messed with most middle eastern eastern countries, thinking that the west is some incorruptible bastion of truth and justice, incapable of wrong is a bit naive.

Hitler only garnered the support he did because of massive reparations that the german people had to pay, reparations which they thought were unjust. WW1 wasn't caused by germany, yet they were singled out for it.

[Urist_McDrowner]

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

[Osmosis Jones]

Invading Iran would be a monumentally bad idea. You currently have the majority of the 25-50 year old population dissatisfied with the government (this from speaking to my many Iranian coworkers), who are waiting for the Ayatollah to die so that they can try a peaceful transition to democracy.

That demographic currently have a lot of good will for the U.S., but they're also proud and by no means stupid; they know what will happen if a foreign country (particularly the rather sloppy U.S. armed forces) tries to come in. People will die. Lots of people. Lot's of civilians. They DO NOT WANT military intervention. Sanctions, fine. Diplomatic pressure, sure. Those things affect the government more than the people, and will help when they do try to go for a peaceful resolution. What they don't want is some idiot foreigners coming through and killing their family because some fresh recruit got spooked.

So, if the U.S. does invade, all you'll do is piss off the populace. A populace that has almost universally undergone 6 months of military service. That's not enough to make them a threat on the world stage, but it will turn their cities into meatgrinders for all your troops. Meatgrinders you'll have no choice but to keep feeding troops into, unless you want yet another fundamentalist government to crawl out of.

Now, do you think ANY politician with two brain cells to knock together wants a repeat of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? You've lost four and half thousand troops in operation Iraqi Freedom alone. Iran would be at least as bad, probably worse.

Why do you want to send your countrymen to die by the thousand?

[Kilroy the Grand]

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

[Sirus]

Why do you want to send your countrymen to die by the thousand?

They don't. People of an "Iran must be destroyed" mindset typically want to nuke them all.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Lots and lots of civilian casualties? Because Libya had oh-so-many, right? Any proof they're waiting for the Ayatollah to die?

How many US people died in Libya? Look at the initial phase of the Iraq War. We lost exactly...

172. No loss is a good loss, but that's with boots on the ground. We don't need to obliterate the government, just destablize it enough for that generation to realize now's the time and the Iranian government is rendered powerless, with military command structures wrecked and the military unable to respond in a meaningful way. Even if we lost 172 (unfathomable with a stealth bomber air campaign), we'd lose those 172 in the name of freedom and justice, which is what they signed up for. Humans are humans. They all have inalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I see no reason that we should not save countless lives, instability with nuclear weapons involved, and help the people alter or abolish their government.

[Urist_McDrowner]

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

Israel was also given the land in a lawful fashion by the lawfully recognized rulers of that land.

[Kilroy the Grand]

We're buddies with Israel because it's their land, historically, and it should be considered so even by muslims. Muslims like Muhammad and the early Caliphs owned the land they did because they took it by force, much like how the Israelis consistently make the Arab countries look like jokes. Muslims had no problems with it then (or now, looking at them retrospectively), why does a double standard exist with Israel? Did Muhammad create a two state solution with the Meccans? Did the first caliph make an Arab State and a Sassanid State?

To be clear, I don't recognize right of conquest, but since the Muslims do, they shouldn't hold this double standard.

It should be considered theirs? What, anyone who is of the jewish faith, or is an ethnic jew? Since my family owned some land near the Neman river a 500 years ago that was later lost to the russians, am I some how obligated to it? I honestly don't understand why israel is given so much leway.

Israel was also given the land in a lawful fashion by the lawfully recognized rulers of that land.

Well yes I'm sure that the Palestinians were thrilled that instead of being given land for helping fight the ottomans, they were instead displaced because a bunch of Europeans thought it would be more politically expedient, never mind the fact that from the get go there were tensions between palestinians and jews just from immigration, let alone giving them all of israel.

Personally I'd side with the muslims that were actually living on the land, but that's just me.

[Osmosis Jones]

According to the head of a UN Human Rights Council, casualties in Libya were around 10-15 000.

Of course, you're only interested in American deaths. None of those, because they didn't need to be there. You already had a pre-existing uprising with ground forces that could capture and hold cities that didn't count towards those casualty stats. I'm not really sure how that situation is anything at all like Iran. Given the strength of their secret police, you wouldn't be able to foment a revolution before hand. So, what, you drop bombs and hope that you inspire an uprising among people who you've just bombed. Come on.

Also, funny that you should bring up the initial phase of the Iraq war. Yeah, you lost 172; then, you lost over 4000 more. I'm not saying you won't be able to do quickly eliminate most military materiel; I'm saying that after you do that, THEN you're going to have a lot of people die. If you bomb the hell of Iran and don't establish order quickly, all you'll end up doing is producing a civil war zone as pro- and anti-establishment forces argue, fight, and eventually kill each other; neither of them will like the U.S. So, you'll just end up with a violent, war-torn area that is a seething hot bed of resentment against the US. Which is were all those terrorist organisations recruit from; the same organisations that you cite as reason to invade in the first place.

So, you send troops in. Troops that, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, will die in droves. Wouldn't be surprised if you were hit by UN sanctions as well, actually, but that's neither here nor there.

 
As I said before, my source for the waiting for the Ayatollah to die was conversation with my coworkers. So no, I can't provide references online. Fine if you don't believe me, it still doesn't change the fact that an invasion would be a horribly bad idea.

[Urist_McDrowner]

Because the Europeans actually owned it. The Muslims can't say "We lived here first". Well, the Sassanids were there before the Muslims conquered them. A Caliph, too, one of the four recognized by Sunnis as real caliphs. Muslims can't say "you took it by force" because they took the Sassanids and the Meccan's land by force.

[Sheb]

Israel was given a small fraction of its  current territory. It was not given the West Bank or Gaza Strip. And the Hebrews weren't there first, there were Caanaanite and the like before them. And don't forget the Homo erectus.