Iran vs the US Thread

[Sidesh0w B0b]

Iran would be a very different war than Iraq. Iran has a better equipped and trained army, geography that gives them a real advantage and powerful allies who would be far more willing to stick their necks out for them in defense of their own interests in the area.

We can quickly discount 'spreading freedom and democracy' as it's become increasingly hard for any US administration to say that with a straight face.

Any serious war with Iran would go badly for Iran, but far, far worse for the US and the middle east.

The geography of Iran would definitely be an obstacle for the US military. Losers all the way around. Any president that started a war like this on little or no pretense would be a madman.

Anybody wanna check that box?

[Duhon]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

Yes, but they're not the ones who'll suffer. It's you and you and you.

Cheers all around!

[Sidesh0w B0b]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

Once one gets down into the mud and fights with pigs it becomes difficult for the observers to distinguish which combatants are the pigs.

[Thermodolia]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

We can have a large military and take care of our infrastructure at the same time

[Novus America]

It's not our job to do this. I thought that this war that started in 1914 ended in 1991. Apparently, our leaders have other ideas. How many more Vietnams or Iraqs or Afghanistans will it take for us to say "no more"? Why can't we cut military spending a little and focus on our roads, our ports, our rail lines? How many more dead will it take for us to leave them alone? Don't we realize that this is exactly what the terrorists want?

We can have a large military and take care of our infrastructure at the same time

We did in the 50s and early 60s. Built better infrastructure while spending twice as much on defense.

Our military/GDP ratio is actually pretty low compared most the post war era.

[Vetalia]

We did in the 50s and early 60s. Built better infrastructure while spending twice as much on defense.

Our military/GDP ratio is actually pretty low compared most the post war era.

True, but now we also have a massive set of government welfare programs to fund that didn't exist back then as well as a never-ending increase in our national debt to GDP ratio, which sucks away more and more revenue to pay interest on the existing debt. To say nothing of the general bureaucratic bloat that has arisen as a result of all the various agencies and departments created since the early 1960s...

[Zhivotnoye]

Not 100% sure, but it seems that this intel was based around Qassem Suleimani, who met with the Iraqi Shia leadership in Baghdad a few weeks ago. During the meeting he supposedly told them to be ready for a (U.S. - Iran) war.

In any case, we know at least that the intel wasn't worth much as the European states almost completely ignored it. Germany and the Netherlands halted their training program for a moment, but as we speak they have been resumed.
So whatever the intel is, the U.S. is clearly overreacting on it.



A stand and point like they did with Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Or Syria? Don't make me laugh.
There's really no point or stand to make concerning Iran.

There absolutely is. If they attack us or our allies we respond. That is the stand.
What is so controversial about that?

Read my reply on your post.

[Novus America]

When did we last bomb Iran? We sank a few ships and accidentally shot down a plane but did not bomb them. And they started that by attacking Kuwaiti ships.
But the quickly fell into line at little cost to us, that was a successful operation, although the shoot down was a unfortunate tragedy.

And the coup argument is BS because the Clerics SUPPORTED the coup too!
Which is ironic. The clerics blaming us for supporting a coup they also supported.
Which shows what liars they are.
Actually that coup saw us on the same side.

And Carter working to topple the Shah and back Khomeini benefited the clerics too!
So what are they bitching about exactly?
We supported them in two coups but okay.

Plus although we supported the coup we did not start it nor cause the conditions that caused it.

Anyways a bombing every 40 years is easily affordable.

But again I am NOT saying we bomb them for no reason.
I am simply saying we be ready to respond if they attack us or our allies.
That is all, again what is so controversial about that?

You answered the question yourself, you sank a few ships and shot down a plane (which was by no means an accident). Oh and no, Iran did not start that. The 'tanker war' started when Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. As a major supporter of the agressor the U.S. found that Iran was more successful than Iraq in taking down oil shipments, and thus decided to protect the shipments from/to Iraq. The operation of the U.S. was indeed successful, which is a shame looking back on it.

Yes, the clerics supported the coup of 1953 as well, though unlike the U.S., they also supported the one in 1979. Yes, Carter had contact with Khomeini, but there was no U.S. support whatsoever for the Iranian people against the Shah, If anything, it merely prevented a counter coup (although that's still up for debate), and on top of that the U.S. had ignored previous calls of Khomeini which dated back as early as 1963, proving the U.S. never cared till it was too late.
When the U.S. decided to protect the Shah from facing trial in Iran it equally decided that hostility was the way forward.

Self-defense is not controversial, as long as it's an appropriate form of self-defense. I miss this so far in your argumentation.
Nevertheless, Iran won't start a war, not unless war becomes inevitable.

Don't worry, Vietnam draft dodgerJohn Bolton knows that the Iranian people will welcome the American forces imposing a new government on them and will be dancing in the streets. In fact, he's committed to sending other people to die to make it happen!

Thank God Trump reigned that asshole in, his death can't come soon enough. Why he appointed him to anything is a mystery but I suspect it's kind of a keep your friends close and enemies closer deal.

Let's hope so.

So you admit the clerics are lying hypocrites.

And you are ignoring Iran did not just attack Iraqi tankers, it attacked Kuwaiti and other third party tankers as well. So we stopped the attacks.

Which was fair. They attacked our ally, we took countermeasures.

The plane shoot down also was clearly an mistake. There was an extensive investigation and actually it is still taught as a case study in the Navy of how to avoid such things happening.
Leave the conspiracy theory garbage out.

Even the Iranian Regime in its submissions to the ICJ argues the US was reckless and negligent, and should have properly identified the aircraft, does not argue the US intended to destroy a civilian place. It does not claim the US knew the identity and acknowledged the US tried to contact the plane, but argues that the attempts to contact it were inadequate.

And actually Carter banned the supply of tear gas and other crowd control to the shah.
Also Carter supporting the clerics was a good thing for the clerics but obviously a very bad one for the Iranian people.

The interests of the clerics and the people are very different.

The point is the Iran good US bad thing you are pushing is not representative of a more complex reality.

[Rea]

All revolutionary regimes can only survive by exporting their revolution, hence the theory of proletarian internationalism. This was the modus operandi of the communist governments (i.e. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, the Soviet Union) during the Cold War and explains why they devoted so much energy to propping up other revolutionary parties around the world. Post-1979 revolutionary Iran operates on the same internationalist principle, which explains why it arms, trains, and funds other revolutionary movements like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Only this time it is exporting a radical form of Shiite Islamic ideology as opposed to Marxism.

Iran will never stop funding movements considered terrorist by the Western world for this reason, and hence will always be a pariah state as long as the Ayatollah's regime survives.

[Scomagia]

Just came by to see if everybody is still handwringing about "teh ebil 'muricans" invading Iran for oil or whatever seems to be the paranoid fantasy of the day. I was not disappointed.

[Nakena]

All revolutionary regimes can only survive by exporting their revolution, hence the theory of proletarian internationalism. This was the modus operandi of the communist governments (i.e. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, the Soviet Union) during the Cold War and explains why they devoted so much energy to propping up other revolutionary parties around the world. Post-1979 revolutionary Iran operates on the same internationalist principle, which explains why it arms, trains, and funds other revolutionary movements like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Only this time it is exporting a radical form of Shiite Islamic ideology as opposed to Marxism.

Iran will never stop funding movements considered terrorist by the Western world for this reason, and hence will always be a pariah state as long as the Ayatollah's regime survives.

This absolutly nails it.

[Zhivotnoye]

You answered the question yourself, you sank a few ships and shot down a plane (which was by no means an accident). Oh and no, Iran did not start that. The 'tanker war' started when Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. As a major supporter of the agressor the U.S. found that Iran was more successful than Iraq in taking down oil shipments, and thus decided to protect the shipments from/to Iraq. The operation of the U.S. was indeed successful, which is a shame looking back on it.

Yes, the clerics supported the coup of 1953 as well, though unlike the U.S., they also supported the one in 1979. Yes, Carter had contact with Khomeini, but there was no U.S. support whatsoever for the Iranian people against the Shah, If anything, it merely prevented a counter coup (although that's still up for debate), and on top of that the U.S. had ignored previous calls of Khomeini which dated back as early as 1963, proving the U.S. never cared till it was too late.
When the U.S. decided to protect the Shah from facing trial in Iran it equally decided that hostility was the way forward.

Self-defense is not controversial, as long as it's an appropriate form of self-defense. I miss this so far in your argumentation.
Nevertheless, Iran won't start a war, not unless war becomes inevitable.



Let's hope so.

So you admit the clerics are lying hypocrites.

And you are ignoring Iran did not just attack Iraqi tankers, it attacked Kuwaiti and other third party tankers as well. So we stopped the attacks.

Which was fair. They attacked our ally, we took countermeasures.

The plane shoot down also was clearly an mistake. There was an extensive investigation and actually it is still taught as a case study in the Navy of how to avoid such things happening.
Leave the conspiracy theory garbage out.

Even the Iranian Regime in its submissions to the ICJ argues the US was reckless and negligent, and should have properly identified the aircraft, does not argue the US intended to destroy a civilian place. It does not claim the US knew the identity and acknowledged the US tried to contact the plane, but argues that the attempts to contact it were inadequate.

And actually Carter banned the supply of tear gas and other crowd control to the shah.
Also Carter supporting the clerics was a good thing for the clerics but obviously a very bad one for the Iranian people.

The interests of the clerics and the people are very different.

The point is the Iran good US bad thing you are pushing is not representative of a more complex reality.

Just like everybody else. Nobody claimed they were special.

I'm not ignoring anything, you really need to read more carefully. As stated before, Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. Third party ships received no exemption on any side.
So you did not stop anything, you merely choose to back a brutal dictator who was waging an illegal war while showering his enemies and own citizens with chemical weapons.

It was hypocrisy, not fairness.

A mistake for sure, but no accident by any means. Or are you going to claim that the plane wasn't the target when they decided to shoot at it?
On a side note, good job on killing your very own allies who you claim you're trying to protect. What a joke.

Hardly good for the clerics as his support was close to meaningless. Also whether it was good for the Iranian people or not remains a question, let's not pretend like the Shah was any better.
The interests of politicians almost aways contradict those of the people, it's no different in the U.S. or anywhere else really.

I'm not pushing anything. I more so believe you're trying to push your delusional 'U.S. good Iran bad' narrative.

[Novus America]

So you admit the clerics are lying hypocrites.

And you are ignoring Iran did not just attack Iraqi tankers, it attacked Kuwaiti and other third party tankers as well. So we stopped the attacks.

Which was fair. They attacked our ally, we took countermeasures.

The plane shoot down also was clearly an mistake. There was an extensive investigation and actually it is still taught as a case study in the Navy of how to avoid such things happening.
Leave the conspiracy theory garbage out.

Even the Iranian Regime in its submissions to the ICJ argues the US was reckless and negligent, and should have properly identified the aircraft, does not argue the US intended to destroy a civilian place. It does not claim the US knew the identity and acknowledged the US tried to contact the plane, but argues that the attempts to contact it were inadequate.

And actually Carter banned the supply of tear gas and other crowd control to the shah.
Also Carter supporting the clerics was a good thing for the clerics but obviously a very bad one for the Iranian people.

The interests of the clerics and the people are very different.

The point is the Iran good US bad thing you are pushing is not representative of a more complex reality.

Just like everybody else. Nobody claimed they were special.

I'm not ignoring anything, you really need to read more carefully. As stated before, Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. Third party ships received no exemption on any side.
So you did not stop anything, you merely choose to back a brutal dictator who was waging an illegal war while showering his enemies and own citizens with chemical weapons.

It was hypocrisy, not fairness.

A mistake for sure, but no accident by any means. Or are you going to claim that the plane wasn't the target when they decided to shoot at it?
On a side note, good job on killing your very own allies who you claim you're trying to protect. What a joke.

Hardly good for the clerics as his support was close to meaningless. Also whether it was good for the Iranian people or not remains a question, let's not pretend like the Shah was any better.
The interests of politicians almost aways contradict those of the people, it's no different in the U.S. or anywhere else really.

I'm not pushing anything. I more so believe you're trying to push your delusional 'U.S. good Iran bad' narrative.

Iraq doing bad shit does not justify Iran doing it.

And again you over simplify something quite complex.
Actually the US did fairly little to back Saddam.

He got nearly all the weapons he used in the war from the Soviets BTW.
Funny you never mention that...

And actually the US supplied Iran some weapons.
The US did not want Iraq to win, nor lose.

We were trying to maintain the status of power and the flow of oil.
It was not altruism of course. But logical.

Mistake or accident is semantics, yes the missile was purposely launched, but the aircraft was believed by the crew to be a military craft on a possible attack run.
The US had nothing to gain from shooting down a airliner.

Cutting off crowd control supplies was not meaningless, as it left the government no way to put down the protests without slaughter.

Still funny the clerics never mention that nor their support of the 53 coup...

And the Shah was often bad but certainly better.
You know why the Clerics turned on him?
He actually was trying to pass extremely progressive land reform.
Which would have helped the people a lot. But guess who owned the land so would lose if the people gained?
The Clerics of course!

And yes I am biased.
I admit that.
So will you admit you are?

The reality of course is much more complex than all bad vs all good.

[Zhivotnoye]

Just like everybody else. Nobody claimed they were special.

I'm not ignoring anything, you really need to read more carefully. As stated before, Iraq attempted to block Iran's oil shipments by bombing tankers heading to/from Iran. Iran retaliated by doing the exact same. Third party ships received no exemption on any side.
So you did not stop anything, you merely choose to back a brutal dictator who was waging an illegal war while showering his enemies and own citizens with chemical weapons.

It was hypocrisy, not fairness.

A mistake for sure, but no accident by any means. Or are you going to claim that the plane wasn't the target when they decided to shoot at it?
On a side note, good job on killing your very own allies who you claim you're trying to protect. What a joke.

Hardly good for the clerics as his support was close to meaningless. Also whether it was good for the Iranian people or not remains a question, let's not pretend like the Shah was any better.
The interests of politicians almost aways contradict those of the people, it's no different in the U.S. or anywhere else really.

I'm not pushing anything. I more so believe you're trying to push your delusional 'U.S. good Iran bad' narrative.

Iraq doing bad shit does not justify Iran doing it.

And again you over simplify something quite complex.
Actually the US did fairly little to back Saddam.

He got nearly all the weapons he used in the war from the Soviets BTW.
Funny you never mention that...

And actually the US supplied Iran some weapons.
The US did not want Iraq to win, nor lose.

We were trying to maintain the status of power and the flow of oil.
It was not altruism of course. But logical.

Mistake or accident is semantics, yes the missile was purposely launched, but the aircraft was believed by the crew to be a military craft on a possible attack run.
The US had nothing to gain from shooting down a airliner.

Cutting off crowd control supplies was not meaningless, as it left the government no way to put down the protests without slaughter.

Still funny the clerics never mention that nor their support of the 53 coup...

And the Shah was often bad but certainly better.
You know why the Clerics turned on him?
He actually was trying to pass extremely progressive land reform.
Which would have helped the people a lot. But guess who owned the land so would lose if the people gained?
The Clerics of course!

And yes I am biased.
I admit that.
So will you admit you are?

The reality of course is much more complex than all bad vs all good.

Never said it did.

Enough to keep the war going, which is too much already (not to mention it directly attacking Iran itself).

Don't see how that's relevant here as we're talking about the U.S. and Iran, not the Soviet Union.

Which makes it even worse.

^

Nope it's not, there's a clear difference between an accident and a mistake.

Hardly. The Shah was on his way out and everybody knew that already. Teargas or not, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Why would or should they? It's not like politicians are speakers of truth, nor do they often speak about their past doings. In fact, most tend to stay away from that.

Not even close, but seeing the next part i can understand you liked him more, as after all, he loved to kiss U.S. ass.

Good thing you're admitting your bias, saves me a lot of trouble.
I don't have to admit something i am not. Not sure why you still have the idea (or got it from in the first place) that i would bias towards the situation.

Something nobody denies.

In any case, i'm ending the discussion here. With the confirmation of your bias this has become a waste of time.

[Novus America]

Iraq doing bad shit does not justify Iran doing it.

And again you over simplify something quite complex.
Actually the US did fairly little to back Saddam.

He got nearly all the weapons he used in the war from the Soviets BTW.
Funny you never mention that...

And actually the US supplied Iran some weapons.
The US did not want Iraq to win, nor lose.

We were trying to maintain the status of power and the flow of oil.
It was not altruism of course. But logical.

Mistake or accident is semantics, yes the missile was purposely launched, but the aircraft was believed by the crew to be a military craft on a possible attack run.
The US had nothing to gain from shooting down a airliner.

Cutting off crowd control supplies was not meaningless, as it left the government no way to put down the protests without slaughter.

Still funny the clerics never mention that nor their support of the 53 coup...

And the Shah was often bad but certainly better.
You know why the Clerics turned on him?
He actually was trying to pass extremely progressive land reform.
Which would have helped the people a lot. But guess who owned the land so would lose if the people gained?
The Clerics of course!

And yes I am biased.
I admit that.
So will you admit you are?

The reality of course is much more complex than all bad vs all good.

Never said it did.

Enough to keep the war going, which is too much already (not to mention it directly attacking Iran itself).

Don't see how that's relevant here as we're talking about the U.S. and Iran, not the Soviet Union.

Which makes it even worse.

^

Nope it's not, there's a clear difference between an accident and a mistake.

Hardly. The Shah was on his way out and everybody knew that already. Teargas or not, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Why would or should they? It's not like politicians are speakers of truth, nor do they often speak about their past doings. In fact, most tend to stay away from that.

Not even close, but seeing the next part i can understand you liked him more, as after all, he loved to kiss U.S. ass.

Good thing you're admitting your bias, saves me a lot of trouble.
I don't have to admit something i am not. Not sure why you still have the idea (or got it from in the first place) that i would bias towards the situation.

Something nobody denies.

In any case, i'm ending the discussion here. With the confirmation of your bias this has become a waste of time.

Biased does not mean lying.
We are all biased.

It is better we admit that than lie to ourselves.
The only way to keep your bias from getting out of hand is to acknowledge it.

And clearly you are extremely biased against the US.
Just admit it.

Again the US was not trying to keep the war going but to keep either side from destroying the other completely.
Our goal was to preserve the pre war status quo.

Plus arguing US actions during the war caused the hostility is BS because the attack on the US embassy and hostage taking happened BEFORE.

And you really should read up on the White Revolution.
The problem was the Shah ended up becoming to progressive too fast.

The urban students used it to support open revolution and the backwards rural areas were not ready, so the revolution created something definitely worse than the Shah’s (admittedly deeply flawed regime).

And of course I prefer a friendly government to a hostile one, who would not?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Germany
Japan
South Korea

Three stable democracies installed by the US.

Germany and Japan were both democratic governments, or at least constitutional monarchies prior to WWII and had been for a long time. The US does deserve credit for preserving and rebuilding those institutions, however, especially while facing the very real nightmare of Soviet and Chinese Communist agitation. You could even add Iraq to the list as it is stable and democratic now that IS has been dismantled.

However, South Korea was an authoritarian state until quite recently but still orders of magnitude better than the hell inflicted by Communism on the countries in the Soviet and Chinese spheres. Nonetheless, it would not have been possible for it to exist and develop as it has without US protection.

Germany under the weimar republic was.... dysfunctional at best. From 33 onwards it was a dictatorship. Japan was more of a quasi monarchic military junta. I wouldn't call it a stable democracy.

As for Korea I completely agree. The US is still there to this day. Iraq being as stable as it is is honestly a miracle in my eyes. It still isn't a stable democracy however. Now Panama was turned into a very stable democracy. Haven't the faintest clue how. Maybe low population + the economic value of the canal?

[Nakena]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

[Diopolis]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

That it aligns with US interests OR happens to serve as a good example for whatever point the democracy proponent using the term is trying to make.

[Khataiy]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

I do not wish for a "stable democracy" in Iran, first Iran needs to be 100% Balkanized after that I donot really care what happens in areas left under Persian control as long as they are never allowed to regain any form of power, stability or success.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

No fighting.
Abide term limits (if applicable).
Low corruption/bribes.
Transition between ideaologies possible.
Relatively few people excluded from meaningful voting.
Government able to pass some meaningful legislation once in a while.

[Nakena]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

No fighting.
Abide term limits (if applicable).
Low corruption/bribes.
Transition between ideaologies possible.
Relatively few people excluded from meaningful voting.
Government able to pass some meaningful legislation once in a while.

Fair enough. That doesnt leaves a lot of places left on Earth. Pretty much this is limited to Europe, North America, and a few other spots here and there.

[Heloin]

Whats the definition of a stable democracy? That they hold every couple of years elections without shooting it out?

I do not wish for a "stable democracy" in Iran, first Iran needs to be 100% Balkanized after that I donot really care what happens in areas left under Persian control as long as they are never allowed to regain any form of power, stability or success.

How is that possibly a good idea?

[North German Realm]

I do not wish for a "stable democracy" in Iran, first Iran needs to be 100% Balkanized after that I donot really care what happens in areas left under Persian control as long as they are never allowed to regain any form of power, stability or success.

How is that possibly a good idea?

It isn't, he's just an Arab Supremacist with a hate boner for civilization.

[-Ocelot-]

Just came by to see if everybody is still handwringing about "teh ebil 'muricans" invading Iran for oil or whatever seems to be the paranoid fantasy of the day. I was not disappointed.

It's surreal. Iran is an American-hating dictatorial theocratic regime and a Russian ally. It is a nation that wants to build nuclear weapons so it can threaten the US, Europe and all Sunni countries in perpetuity. It oppressed it's people and sends women to jail for not wearing head scarves. That's what Americans root for nowadays.

But I am not surprised. The same surrealism was present when Americans were hating their very own nation for being against Assad and ISIS. America bombing ISIS extremists or trying to depose Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people is somehow bad....according to Americans.

[Nakena]

Just came by to see if everybody is still handwringing about "teh ebil 'muricans" invading Iran for oil or whatever seems to be the paranoid fantasy of the day. I was not disappointed.

It's surreal. Iran is an American-hating dictatorial theocratic regime and a Russian ally. It is a nation that wants to build nuclear weapons so it can threaten the US, Europe and all Sunni countries in perpetuity. It oppressed it's people and sends women to jail for not wearing head scarves. That's what Americans root for nowadays.

But I am not surprised. The same surrealism was present when Americans were hating their very own nation for being against Assad and ISIS. America bombing ISIS extremists or trying to depose Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people is somehow bad....according to Americans.

It has more to do with sympathies and partisan thinking.

Either you're with Team Israel/USA or with Team Syria/Russia/Iran

The later one is currently the more popular.