Iran vs the US Megathread

[Tarsonis]

“Thousands of missiles”


Last figure I saw, Iran only had about 200 total

I'm only roughly summarizing what he said, I can't confirm nor deny it.

I know I’m just shaking my head at the IRs empty threats

[Novus America]

Congress needs to do more than clutch its pearls. Congress needs to reassert its Article I authority to decide when and if we go to war, and with whom. Presidents have usurped far too much of Congress' power over the years, and we really need to put that power back where it belongs.

I expect that this could only happen under a president that actually wanted to get the US out of all its wars, not a president who just said that to get elected.

---

I mean I am just being realistic. You just keep beating these groups down, you can only keep them down by beating them down.

Kind of like HIV, you will be on the suppression drugs forever.

Except you're talking about killing people. Lots of people, constantly, forever. And for what, because you're afraid that if you let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries that they'll be mad at you? The fuck do you expect?

Except we do let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries. That does not solve the problem because they run their countries horribly, creating more terrorists.

The US did not cause terrorism to appear in the first place, and us doing nothing will not make it disappear.

The only way to actually fix the problem would be to create competent governments in the region. Unless we do that, the war will last forever.

[Novus America]

Except you're talking about killing people. Lots of people, constantly, forever. And for what, because you're afraid that if you let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries that they'll be mad at you? The fuck do you expect?

I never understood this argument. Many of the terrorists we're fighting have probably been facing a US invasion for as long as they can remember, in some cases longer than they've been alive, the US (or at least the current US president) openly hates them, and we seem to have no objective other than killing people for the sake of killing people in the vain hope that if we kill enough people, maybe they'll stop hating us, as if killing people's friends and family somehow gets them to like us better. Iraqis and Afghans have every right to hate us after the hell we've put them through, it's no wonder that terrorist organizations are finding so many willing recruits.

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so the people will always be easily radicalized.

And so the war will be forever.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I never understood this argument. Many of the terrorists we're fighting have probably been facing a US invasion for as long as they can remember, in some cases longer than they've been alive, the US (or at least the current US president) openly hates them, and we seem to have no objective other than killing people for the sake of killing people in the vain hope that if we kill enough people, maybe they'll stop hating us, as if killing people's friends and family somehow gets them to like us better. Iraqis and Afghans have every right to hate us after the hell we've put them through, it's no wonder that terrorist organizations are finding so many willing recruits.

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so they people will always be easily radicalized.

To fix a system in a state the likes of Iraq’s current system requires fundamental change and wholesale reform, so yes, good governance is where one should begin in order to truly change the system.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I never understood this argument. Many of the terrorists we're fighting have probably been facing a US invasion for as long as they can remember, in some cases longer than they've been alive, the US (or at least the current US president) openly hates them, and we seem to have no objective other than killing people for the sake of killing people in the vain hope that if we kill enough people, maybe they'll stop hating us, as if killing people's friends and family somehow gets them to like us better. Iraqis and Afghans have every right to hate us after the hell we've put them through, it's no wonder that terrorist organizations are finding so many willing recruits.

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so the people will always be easily radicalized.

And so the war will be forever.

How do endless wars against terrorists with no serious attempts to build goodwill or stability help fix the problem if the problem is a lack of goodwill and stability? How do you know that Iraqis and Afghans cannot be trusted to govern themselves if we aren't giving them the chance to actually exercise autonomy? And if you yourself admit that we have accomplished nothing and we will never accomplish anything by fighting in Afghanistan, why are we wasting thousands of lives and trillions of dollars fighting an utterly pointless war? With those resources, we could've ensured far better quality of life for our citizens, or if that's not your thing we could've gotten a massive tax break instead. Why should killing Middle Easterners for the sake of killing Middle Easterners take priority over that?

[Tarsonis]

So I’ve been spending the last hour reading about the Qiam-1 and Fateh-110 ballistic missiles. The Fateh-110 is accurate within about 100m and the Qiam-1 is accurate to within 500m. Compare to the US Tomahawk that is accurate within 3m.


Looking at the aerial photographs, and with that knowledge in mind, the idea that the Iran launched a precision strike to avoid American casualties is laughably false on its face. They basically pointed their missiles to the west and hoped for the best.

[Nakena]

So I’ve been spending the last hour reading about the Qiam-1 and Fateh-110 ballistic missiles. The Fateh-110 is accurate within about 100m and the Qiam-1 is accurate to within 500m. Compare to the US Tomahawk that is accurate within 3m.


Looking at the aerial photographs, and with that knowledge in mind, the idea that the Iran launched a precision strike to avoid American casualties is laughably false on its face. They basically pointed their missiles to the west and hoped for the best.

So glorified skyrockets. Scary.

[Ifreann]

I expect that this could only happen under a president that actually wanted to get the US out of all its wars, not a president who just said that to get elected.

---

Except you're talking about killing people. Lots of people, constantly, forever. And for what, because you're afraid that if you let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries that they'll be mad at you? The fuck do you expect?

Except we do let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries. That does not solve the problem because they run their countries horribly, creating more terrorists.

They're not running their own countries when you have a gun to their heads.

The US did not cause terrorism to appear in the first place, and us doing nothing will not make it disappear.

Sure thing, man, they just hate you for your freedoms. Terrorism was invented in 2001 and the US was never involved in the Middle East before that in any way.

The only way to actually fix the problem would be to create competent governments in the region. Unless we do that, the war will last forever.

You said the war should last forever, that the US is being too soft, that this is like having HIV.

---

I never understood this argument. Many of the terrorists we're fighting have probably been facing a US invasion for as long as they can remember, in some cases longer than they've been alive, the US (or at least the current US president) openly hates them, and we seem to have no objective other than killing people for the sake of killing people in the vain hope that if we kill enough people, maybe they'll stop hating us, as if killing people's friends and family somehow gets them to like us better. Iraqis and Afghans have every right to hate us after the hell we've put them through, it's no wonder that terrorist organizations are finding so many willing recruits.

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so the people will always be easily radicalized.

And so the war will be forever.

I don't know how you can believe that what's radicalising people in Iraq and Afghanistan is the form of government you created there and not the mountains of corpses.

[Tarsonis]

So I’ve been spending the last hour reading about the Qiam-1 and Fateh-110 ballistic missiles. The Fateh-110 is accurate within about 100m and the Qiam-1 is accurate to within 500m. Compare to the US Tomahawk that is accurate within 3m.


Looking at the aerial photographs, and with that knowledge in mind, the idea that the Iran launched a precision strike to avoid American casualties is laughably false on its face. They basically pointed their missiles to the west and hoped for the best.

So glorified skyrockets. Scary.

1.2. 5!

[Novus America]

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so they people will always be easily radicalized.

To fix a system in a state the likes of Iraq’s current system requires fundamental change and wholesale reform, so yes, good governance is where one should begin in order to truly change the system.

And herein lies the problem. The Iraqi government is beyond saving, to have good governance it would have to be torn down completely and rebuilt from he ground up.
Probably broken up into three countries too.

[North German Realm]

To fix a system in a state the likes of Iraq’s current system requires fundamental change and wholesale reform, so yes, good governance is where one should begin in order to truly change the system.

And herein lies the problem. The Iraqi government is beyond saving, to have good governance it would have to be torn down completely and rebuilt from he ground up.
Probably broken up into three countries too.

Mesopotamia is rightful Persian Clay but in all seriousness, the hilarity of it is that Iraq is essentially the only country that suffers from this, despite the fact it's in no way the only post-Ottoman country with stark demographic problems.

[Novus America]

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so the people will always be easily radicalized.

And so the war will be forever.

How do endless wars against terrorists with no serious attempts to build goodwill or stability help fix the problem if the problem is a lack of goodwill and stability? How do you know that Iraqis and Afghans cannot be trusted to govern themselves if we aren't giving them the chance to actually exercise autonomy? And if you yourself admit that we have accomplished nothing and we will never accomplish anything by fighting in Afghanistan, why are we wasting thousands of lives and trillions of dollars fighting an utterly pointless war? With those resources, we could've ensured far better quality of life for our citizens, or if that's not your thing we could've gotten a massive tax break instead. Why should killing Middle Easterners for the sake of killing Middle Easterners take priority over that?

You premise is inherently flawed. You assume we actually have any role in the day to day governance. We do not.
They usually do the exact opposite of what we recommend.

It is less they are “unable to govern themselves” and more “liberal democracy is not workable in a tribal society with no real history of Enlightenment philosophy”.

We are not actually doing much in Afghanistan anymore. The money wasted was already wasted, it is not coming back. Now we are not spending nearly as much, and we are not losing many people. Since fixing their government is not politically possible, we can continue to put in minimal effort from keeping it from collapsing completely, which obviously would just mean more terrorism if it became a terrorist state again instead.

[Novus America]

And herein lies the problem. The Iraqi government is beyond saving, to have good governance it would have to be torn down completely and rebuilt from he ground up.
Probably broken up into three countries too.

Mesopotamia is rightful Persian Clay but in all seriousness, the hilarity of it is that Iraq is essentially the only country that suffers from this, despite the fact it's in no way the only post-Ottoman country with stark demographic problems.

I mean it is not though. Syria is a complete mess too.
So is Lebanon. And Yemen.

[Novus America]

Except we do let Iraqis and Afghans run their own countries. That does not solve the problem because they run their countries horribly, creating more terrorists.

They're not running their own countries when you have a gun to their heads.

The US did not cause terrorism to appear in the first place, and us doing nothing will not make it disappear.

Sure thing, man, they just hate you for your freedoms. Terrorism was invented in 2001 and the US was never involved in the Middle East before that in any way.

The only way to actually fix the problem would be to create competent governments in the region. Unless we do that, the war will last forever.

You said the war should last forever, that the US is being too soft, that this is like having HIV.

---

This ignores that the terrorist issue started before we got there and will continue after we left.

Only good governance will fix the problem, but because of our idealism we let completely worthless governments form in Afghanistan and Iraq, they will never have good governance.
And so the people will always be easily radicalized.

And so the war will be forever.

I don't know how you can believe that what's radicalising people in Iraq and Afghanistan is the form of government you created there and not the mountains of corpses.

If they have a gun to their heads why do they do the opposite of what we want them to do?

The vast majority of people killed on Iraq and Afghanistan were killed by their own government or each other. So yeah, it makes since to then assume the governments are indeed the biggest issue.

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

[Pacomia]

At least it's starting to cool down. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

[North German Realm]

Mesopotamia is rightful Persian Clay but in all seriousness, the hilarity of it is that Iraq is essentially the only country that suffers from this, despite the fact it's in no way the only post-Ottoman country with stark demographic problems.

I mean it is not though. Syria is a complete mess too.
So is Lebanon. And Yemen.

1- Yemen isn't a Post-Ottoman state. The messes around Yemen are -again- The UK's fault, but not for the same reason that the Post-Ottoman states are.
2- Lebanon and Syria both functioned as states until the IR's proxies began making a mess of them. They were dictatorial or dysfunctional, but they still functioned. Iraq as a state hasn't functioned without literal attempted genocide ever since its establishment.

[Novus America]

I mean it is not though. Syria is a complete mess too.
So is Lebanon. And Yemen.

1- Yemen isn't a Post-Ottoman state. The messes around Yemen are -again- The UK's fault, but not for the same reason that the Post-Ottoman states are.
2- Lebanon and Syria both functioned as states until the IR's proxies began making a mess of them. They were dictatorial or dysfunctional, but they still functioned. Iraq as a state hasn't functioned without literal attempted genocide ever since its establishment.

True, but the IR will continue to drive sectarian warfare in Iraq, Syria an Lebanon.
And true Iraq is especially dysfunctional.
Especially after the 1958 coup.
Although it was hardly great before it.

True Yemen is not really a post Ottoman state, although North Yemen was controlled by the Ottomans for a time.
But the IR will cause problems there too.

The point remains that actually fixing the problems would take a radical reforming of the region.

[North German Realm]

1- Yemen isn't a Post-Ottoman state. The messes around Yemen are -again- The UK's fault, but not for the same reason that the Post-Ottoman states are.
2- Lebanon and Syria both functioned as states until the IR's proxies began making a mess of them. They were dictatorial or dysfunctional, but they still functioned. Iraq as a state hasn't functioned without literal attempted genocide ever since its establishment.

True, but the IR will continue to drive sectarian warfare in Iraq, Syria an Lebanon.
And true Iraq is especially dysfunctional.
Especially after the 1958 coup.
Although it was hardly great before it.

True Yemen is not really a post Ottoman state, although North Yemen was controlled by the Ottomans for a time.
But the IR will cause problems there too.

The point remains that actually fixing the problems would take a radical reforming of the region.

Not really. All these states you've named are -at this point- dysfunctional specifically and uniquely due to the IR's actions. Remove the IR and establish a Nationalist, secular gov't instead, and they may go back to functioning like they did pre-IR Revolution. Except for Iraq, which is dysfunctional for very different reasons.

[Cisairse]

True, but the IR will continue to drive sectarian warfare in Iraq, Syria an Lebanon.
And true Iraq is especially dysfunctional.
Especially after the 1958 coup.
Although it was hardly great before it.

True Yemen is not really a post Ottoman state, although North Yemen was controlled by the Ottomans for a time.
But the IR will cause problems there too.

The point remains that actually fixing the problems would take a radical reforming of the region.

Not really. All these states you've named are -at this point- dysfunctional specifically and uniquely due to the IR's actions. Remove the IR and establish a Nationalist, secular gov't instead, and they may go back to functioning like they did pre-IR Revolution. Except for Iraq, which is dysfunctional for very different reasons.

Bring back the Ottoman Empire and millet law
Solves all problems in the world, 100% guaranteed

[Tarsonis]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 419263002/


Oof tell me more about how Iran came out ahead in this and didn’t completely embarrass itself

[Novus America]

True, but the IR will continue to drive sectarian warfare in Iraq, Syria an Lebanon.
And true Iraq is especially dysfunctional.
Especially after the 1958 coup.
Although it was hardly great before it.

True Yemen is not really a post Ottoman state, although North Yemen was controlled by the Ottomans for a time.
But the IR will cause problems there too.

The point remains that actually fixing the problems would take a radical reforming of the region.

Not really. All these states you've named are -at this point- dysfunctional specifically and uniquely due to the IR's actions. Remove the IR and establish a Nationalist, secular gov't instead, and they may go back to functioning like they did pre-IR Revolution. Except for Iraq, which is dysfunctional for very different reasons.

Well I agree. Lebanon was more functional before 1979 to be sure.
A secular Iran would dramatically improve things.
But yeah, Iraq probably just needs to be split up.

It as only been held together by brutal violence.

Ultimately a secular Iran would be part of that radical reform.
But the problem is we are not going to get a secular Iran again anytime soon.

[North German Realm]

Not really. All these states you've named are -at this point- dysfunctional specifically and uniquely due to the IR's actions. Remove the IR and establish a Nationalist, secular gov't instead, and they may go back to functioning like they did pre-IR Revolution. Except for Iraq, which is dysfunctional for very different reasons.

Bring back the Ottoman Empire and millet law
Solves all problems in the world, 100% guaranteed

Honestly, no. I mean, sure establishing the new states as according to the Ottoman pre-established borders (which usually made some sense) would probably help a bit, but the Ottoman Empire is the last thing the ME needs.

[Ifreann]

They're not running their own countries when you have a gun to their heads.


Sure thing, man, they just hate you for your freedoms. Terrorism was invented in 2001 and the US was never involved in the Middle East before that in any way.


You said the war should last forever, that the US is being too soft, that this is like having HIV.

---

I don't know how you can believe that what's radicalising people in Iraq and Afghanistan is the form of government you created there and not the mountains of corpses.

If they have a gun to their heads why do they do the opposite of what we want them to do?

Like tell you to get out of their country and stop killing their people?

The vast majority of people killed on Iraq and Afghanistan were killed by their own government or each other. So yeah, it makes since to then assume the governments are indeed the biggest issue.

Qassem Soleimani didn't personally kill anyone. Or at least, probably not many people. He backed various groups who killed people, and thus was held responsible for those deaths. Consider, then, the responsibility of the United States when soldiers they trained, who work for a government they created and are supporting, kill people.

Tell me, if we got up and left tomorrow do you really think there would be less terrorism and less sectarian warfare on those places?

Compared to your proposal of eternal war, of constantly killing people and pretending it's okay because they're foreigners and they're not killing many of your citizens? Yeah.

[Asle Leopolka]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/09/ukraine-plane-likely-shot-down-iran-missile-report/4419263002/


Oof tell me more about how Iran came out ahead in this and didn’t completely embarrass itself

This would all go away very quickly if Iran would hand over the black box and/or admit they accidentally hit the aircraft and owned up to it.

The 1953 Iranian coup was a mistake.

[North German Realm]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/01/09/ukraine-plane-likely-shot-down-iran-missile-report/4419263002/


Oof tell me more about how Iran came out ahead in this and didn’t completely embarrass itself

This would all go away very quickly if Iran would hand over the black box and/or admit they accidentally hit the aircraft and owned up to it.

The 1953 Iranian coup was a mistake.

It was literally the only correct course of action the US has taken towards Iran as a state ever since Howard Baskerville died lmao. And really, do you think the IR is going to give up the black box and reveal it's shot down a plan with 180 people on it; either accidentally or in order to garner sympathy in the wake of a possible war with the US?