Iran vs the US Thread

[Novus America]

Invasion of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYioaoSwKv8

Remember when the whole point of electing Trump was to stop this sort of thing happening?

I am not sure anyone said the only reason the votes for Trump was solely because of that.
But yes, it definitely appears Trump is in fact NOT interested In invading Iran.
Which is a good thing.

[-Ocelot-]

Iran is a wild card, so let's take a play from Russia's playbook and go "Stabilize" area.
It worked great in the caucases.

When Russia invades, ransacks and annexes an independent nation to gain access to a port, it's self-defense. When America attacks a militant theocracy for threatening use of nuclear weapons, it's imperialism.

Never did I think Americans would root for a theocratic nation that wishes for their death, controlled by another nation that wishes their death even more.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Iran is a wild card, so let's take a play from Russia's playbook and go "Stabilize" area.
It worked great in the caucases.

When Russia invades, ransacks and annexes an independent nation to gain access to a port, it's self-defense. When America attacks a militant theocracy for threatening use of nuclear weapons, it's imperialism.

Never did I think Americans would root for a theocratic nation that wishes for their death, controlled by another nation that wishes their death even more.

Iran is much less militant than the U.S. and issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

[Peshma]

Iran deserves support against U.S Imperialism.

[Novus America]

When Russia invades, ransacks and annexes an independent nation to gain access to a port, it's self-defense. When America attacks a militant theocracy for threatening use of nuclear weapons, it's imperialism.

Never did I think Americans would root for a theocratic nation that wishes for their death, controlled by another nation that wishes their death even more.

Iran is much less militant than the U.S. and issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Not seeing that here. Iran is the one who started shooting here, not the US.
And the US avoided counter attacking to avoid escalation.

[Novus America]

Iran deserves support against U.S Imperialism.

But there is no US imperialism happening here...

[Peshma]

Iran deserves support against U.S Imperialism.

But there is no US imperialism happening here...

[Aureumterra]

Iran deserves support against U.S Imperialism.

Iran? Deserves support?

[Novus America]

But there is no US imperialism happening here...

And? The US having allies in the region, and some forces there with the permission and support of said allies is not imperialism.

Also why is Jordan marked as an Iranian ally on that map?
The US has no military base in Ankara either.
That map is garbage.

[Thyrgga]

That sounds suspiciously like you're trying to use euphemisms to talk around something. So what would stabilisation entail in this context?

Invasion of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYioaoSwKv8

Our infrastructure at home is crumbling and we have a crisis at the border, but we need to go invade countries half a world away.

[Peshma]

And? The US having allies in the region, and some forces there with the permission and support of said allies is not imperialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat

The United States had attempted to seize control of the nation in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq

More coups.

In addition to a number of coups ranging from Australia to all of South America.

Sure. You may think America is there to do whatever it is you think they're there to do, but just remember that Iran is a regional power at best, it has no military nuclear program and did what - shoot down a drone that entered its air space?

Whatever you may think of things, take a long look at the region and tell me how war will somehow improve things for Iranians.

[Peshma]

Iran deserves support against U.S Imperialism.

Iran? Deserves support?

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

[Thyrgga]

Iran? Deserves support?

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hegemonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

They won't need support if we don't invade them.
And yes, war will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people. Compare images of Iraq in the 1950s vs now.

[Novus America]

And? The US having allies in the region, and some forces there with the permission and support of said allies is not imperialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat

The United States had attempted to seize control of the nation in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq

More coups.

In addition to a number of coups ranging from Australia to all of South America.

Sure. You may think America is there to do whatever it is you think they're there to do, but just remember that Iran is a regional power at best, it has no military nuclear program and did what - shoot down a drone that entered its air space?

Whatever you may think of things, take a long look at the region and tell me how war will somehow improve things for Iranians.

First of all the Iranian coup, while supported by the US, was done by Iranians. Coups can be supported from without but always come from WITHIN.

Sure the US has played some shady great power games in the past, but that does not automatically make Iran a victim always.

And do you have any evidence the drone was actually in Iranian airspace?

And what war? The US is not in a war with Iran.

[Novus America]

Iran? Deserves support?

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

If Iran starts a war, Iran is the aggressor.
And there is no war.

So even if there was a war it would not necessarily support your contention.
And there is no war in the first place.

[Thyrgga]

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

If Iran starts a war, Iran is the aggressor.
And there is no war.

So even if there was a war it would not necessarily support your contention.
And there is no war in the first place.

They're talking about another user's suggestion.

That sounds suspiciously like you're trying to use euphemisms to talk around something. So what would stabilisation entail in this context?

Invasion of course.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NYioaoSwKv8

[Peshma]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat

The United States had attempted to seize control of the nation in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq

More coups.

In addition to a number of coups ranging from Australia to all of South America.

Sure. You may think America is there to do whatever it is you think they're there to do, but just remember that Iran is a regional power at best, it has no military nuclear program and did what - shoot down a drone that entered its air space?

Whatever you may think of things, take a long look at the region and tell me how war will somehow improve things for Iranians.

First of all the Iranian coup, while supported by the US, was done by Iranians. Coups can be supported from without but always come from WITHIN.

Sure the US has played some shady great power games in the past, but that does not automatically make Iran a victim always.

And do you have any evidence the drone was actually in Iranian airspace?

And what war? The US is not in a war with Iran.

I mean, yes? But that doesn't defeat my point regardless, nor shed any kind light upon the U.S's track record what-so-ever. Do you think the Brazilians, Salvadorians, Chilians, and any other group really care about that so called 'catch'? The U.S supported, backed, and incentivized such actions. Take a small moment to put yourself into the world view of the Iranians.

A victim? Like the U.S, apparently? What justifies U.S actions?
And lol, just a drone? Surely the U.S has done nothing far worse.

I know. I'm asking you how one would help anything, like the U.S seems eager to pull itself into.

[Hatterleigh]

Iran could strike the US with nuclear weapons and Americans would still defend Iran.

Yeah bro, taking down an unmanned drone hovering right near their country by a nation that has been known to topple middle eastern nations is completely comparable to nuking one of our cities

[Peshma]

Typically, no.
But against foreign, hemegonic aggression? Yes.
War will not improve the circumstances of the Iranian people.

If Iran starts a war, Iran is the aggressor.
And there is no war.

So even if there was a war it would not necessarily support your contention.
And there is no war in the first place.

An aggressor? How?
They're a regional power being bullied and surrounded by a super power, who is under sanctions, sabotage, and false-flag oil-boat attacks that not only have the captain of the very attacked ship called out, but a number of foreign, western nations.

[Novus America]

If Iran starts a war, Iran is the aggressor.
And there is no war.

So even if there was a war it would not necessarily support your contention.
And there is no war in the first place.

An aggressor? How?
They're a regional power being bullied and surrounded by a super power, who is under sanctions, sabotage, and false-flag oil-boat attacks that not only have the captain of the very attacked ship called out, but a number of foreign, western nations.

I said if they started a war they would be.
And attacking oil tankers and shooting down a drone outside their legitimate airspace would be aggression, although we do not have absolute confirmation of all the details, it is very likely they are being an aggressor.

And no, no western nation nor the captain of ship claimed it was a US false flag attack.
There is absolutely no evidence it was.
And even Germany, despite their fairly good relations with Iran and despite Germany regularly disagreeing with and opposing the US, agreed Iran most likely launched the attack.

[Peshma]

An aggressor? How?
They're a regional power being bullied and surrounded by a super power, who is under sanctions, sabotage, and false-flag oil-boat attacks that not only have the captain of the very attacked ship called out, but a number of foreign, western nations.

I said if they started a war they would be.
And attacking oil tankers and shooting down a drone outside their legitimate airspace would be aggression, although we do not have absolute confirmation of all the details, it is very likely they are being an aggressor.

And no, no western nation nor the captain of ship claimed it was a US false flag attack.
There is absolutely no evidence it was.
And even Germany, despite their fairly good relations with Iran and despite Germany regularly disagreeing with and opposing the US, agreed Iran most likely launched the attack.

Two questions -

Why would Iran want a war,
Why would Iran attack oil tankers

[Novus America]

I said if they started a war they would be.
And attacking oil tankers and shooting down a drone outside their legitimate airspace would be aggression, although we do not have absolute confirmation of all the details, it is very likely they are being an aggressor.

And no, no western nation nor the captain of ship claimed it was a US false flag attack.
There is absolutely no evidence it was.
And even Germany, despite their fairly good relations with Iran and despite Germany regularly disagreeing with and opposing the US, agreed Iran most likely launched the attack.

Two questions -

Why would Iran want a war,
Why would Iran attack oil tankers

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... ormuz.html

I do not think they want a full blown war, but they could still start one by miscalculation.

[Peshma]

Two questions -

Why would Iran want a war,
Why would Iran attack oil tankers

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.c ... ormuz.html

I do not think they want a full blown war, but they could still start one by miscalculation.

Nothing to lose? They have their nation, existing power structure, and sovereignty to lose. Look at all the nations the U.S have been active in - Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, why would Iran have 'nothing to lose' in joining the likes of those nations, currently fractured, upheaveled, and occupied?

Calling Trump's 'Bluff'? The United States has proven itself fully willing to join conflicts in the past. With people like John Bolton at the forefront, thy want retaliation. Just look at all the news of a 'limited strike' - There is no such thing as a limited strike! It is violating the sovereignty of another nation and bombing it with munitions designed to kill people and destroy infrastructure. Would Iran be an aggressor if it shot those aircraft out of the sky?
Furthermore, is this really something to bluff over? And I mean that in terms of the U.S Gov't and leadership. Iran isn't in the place to win a conventional war, only one to give the U.S a bloody nose before they ultimately collapse into asymmetrical war.
Perhaps question the sanctions, the U.S military positioning, the history between the U.S and Iran, to better build a picture of circumstances? Iran cannot harm the United States in any real capacity outside of Iran's own backyard. Why are we there to begin with

[Fartsniffage]

New sanctions. I'm sure this will fix everything....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48748544

[Peshma]

Iran doesn't have a military nuclear infastructure.